Read the links...

Post #293,374 by Another Scott 9/21/07 10:19:00 PM Reply	Read the links...
Post #293,377 by bepatient 9/22/07 12:33:51 AM Reply	Re: Read the links... Traitor may also mean a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed I did. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,378 by Another Scott 9/22/07 12:46:00 AM Reply	We'll have to agree to disagree. MoveOn wasn't accusing Petraeus of being a traitor. They were accusing him of playing a political role in support of Bush rather than giving an accurate assessment of the status of the "surge". They were accusing him of "Cooking the Books for the White House" - of betraying the public by becoming a political tool. Cheers, Scott.
Post #293,379 by bepatient 9/22/07 1:00:47 AM Reply	You linked to the definition and now you don't like it. Hell, they even used "betray" to define it. They accused him of betraying the American people. The specific charges may be what you describe...but they could have done that without "Betray Us". That is calling him a traitor by YOUR posted definition. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,381 by Another Scott 9/22/07 1:28:31 AM Reply	Please read me in my posts. ;-) The Wikipedia link for treason says at the start: In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. The MoveOn ad didn't accuse him of doing those things or being a traitor. They didn't say he's sold out to Osama or Muqtada. They didn't use the word traitor - you did. The fact that some people use the word traitor to mean betrayal of friends or one's race or whatever doesn't mean that that's what MoveOn meant by "betray us". I said before that I thought it was childish name calling to use "General Betray Us" in the ad. But it's not a big deal to me, and those who are trying to make it a big deal are doing the public a disservice, IMHO. I think you've fallen for the Republican spin machine on this "issue" and on Hillary in general. But it's a free country - for a little while yet. :-/ OBTW, have a look at [link\|http://www.askarepublican.com/Welcome.html\|Rep. Richard Martin's] comments on [link\|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVMrbKiIyj4\|Hillary and Torture] (Probably NSFW). I'm done. Have a nice night. Cheers, Scott.
Post #293,382 by CRConrad 9/22/07 2:01:18 AM Reply	What has he NOT "fallen for the Republican spin machine" on?
Post #293,384 by bepatient 9/22/07 2:03:40 AM Reply	Quite a bit. But what do you know. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,385 by CRConrad 9/22/07 2:23:49 AM Reply	Quite a bit - I've known you for over ten years now. And unfortunately, it's quite obvious that you're not a "victim" of any spin; you're actively putting a Republican spin on pretty much fucking everything you say. And that's pretty fucking sad, because, you know, there's a reason people call them "Repugnicans" these days. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #293,388 by bepatient 9/22/07 2:43:01 AM Reply	Thats funny ask around. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,383 by bepatient 9/22/07 2:02:59 AM Reply	You told me to read the link. I did. And quoted from it. Treason (crime) and traitor are 2 different beasts. And maybe we must agree to disagree...because "betray us" pretty much word for word fits what you linked as the definition of traitor. Unfortunately the Repo spin machine pretty much has this one right...unfortunately for her. Will it hurt her at this stage, no. Will it hurt her when she faces the rep candidate, it depends on which candidate that is. It does, however, make it very easy to paint her as a weak supporter of the military. They don't even need Rove or the swift boaters for this one. Interesting attempt by a congresscritter at stand up in that last link. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,386 by CRConrad 9/22/07 2:34:45 AM Reply	Oh, bullpucky! This is a TYPICAL fucking example of your Repugnispin -- it only amazes me that you dare try to disclaim it, right next to where you so brazenly illustrate it. You're conflating three different definitions (or four or maybe even five) of two (or three) different words, to arrive back at the word you WANT to have people think MoveOn used: Just because someone who betrayed something not-his-country (e.g, his friends, a sacred trust, etc) can also be called "a traitor" (to those things), does NOT mean that if you say someone betrayed something (unspecified what) you have necessarily accused him of "TREASON" (to his country). Frankly, that's so fucking transparent you should be ashamed to even have tried it. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #293,390 by bepatient 9/22/07 2:47:50 AM Reply	BS - straight up. (new thread) Created as new thread #293389 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=293389\|BS - straight up.] Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,400 by Seamus 9/22/07 11:01:41 AM Reply	The definition you quoted from was used to explain the use of the word traitor in phrases such race traitor - when there is explicit use of the word traitor. You are switching the contexts of the definitions to fit your argument. In my opinion, the use of the word betray in the ad is in the sense of letting down the country, not as a traitor to the country. You sincerely believe that the military has no place in this type of discussion, I can understand that. What you don't seem to consider possible is that others, possibly even Sen. Clinton, make a distinction between Gen. Peatrus' political role and his military role. Nor do you seem to allow for that possibility that the republicans only support the military when it suits there political needs. And therefore, the resolution you implied that Sen. Clinton only ignored because she didn't want to offend a group of donors, I see as nasty politics that is only furthering the us versus them, bunker mentality of the neocons. Seamus
Post #293,403 by bepatient 9/22/07 11:41:54 AM Reply	Go to the dictionary. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,404 by Seamus 9/22/07 11:49:20 AM Reply	You are just playing with the context Utterly ridiculous to imply that your impression of what they meant is the only interpretation. Seamus
Post #293,408 by bepatient 9/22/07 11:55:47 AM Reply	Give me a break Its word for word from the definition. Its absurd for you to deny it. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,417 by Seamus 9/22/07 12:24:59 PM Reply	It is absurd for you not to admit that there are different definitions and uses of the word traitor. And it is absurd that the definition you used from Scott's link, the one used to explain the use of traitor in phrases such 'race traitor' can only mean That is calling him a traitor by YOUR posted definition. Seamus
Post #293,419 by bepatient 9/22/07 12:41:55 PM Reply	Not worth it Politics 101 - How to lose elections. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,421 by Seamus 9/22/07 12:52:01 PM Reply	It just may do that But the argument is about the intent of the ad, the meaning of the words, not what affect it will have on the election. Two separate arguments. Seamus
Post #293,396 by a6l6e6x 9/22/07 9:44:32 AM Reply	"Betray" was necessary to make it rhyme. It's an elementary schoolyard name calling thing. It's one of the counterproductive aspects of the ad. Anyone who was ever been subjected to name calling based on their last name, (and who hasn't?), will be repulsed by it and will not read the message. Alex Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. -- Sophocles (496? - 406 BCE)
Post #293,397 by Another Scott 9/22/07 9:52:50 AM Reply	Ding Ding Ding
Post #293,427 by rcareaga 9/22/07 2:11:10 PM Reply	schoolyard name-calling Quite so, although that's a small enough nugget of actual mass to have been spun into this cumulonimbus-size volume of brouhaha. As to juvenile name-calling, though, I seem to remember our brethren on the right just busting a gut, back in the day, over "Ellen Degenerate." Michael Kinsley has put it nicely: Welcome to the wonderful world of umbrage, the new language of American politics. You would not have thought that the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would be so sensitive. Sticks and stones and so on. Yet they all seem to have taken one look at that ad and fainted dead away. And when they came round, they demanded — as if with one voice (or at least as if with one list of talking points) — that every Democratic presidential candidate must "condemn" this shocking, shocking document. The ad is pretty tough, and the pun on the general's name is pretty witless. You could argue that since the verb betray and the noun traitor have the same root, the ad is accusing the head of American forces in Iraq of treason. The ad can also be interpreted — more plausibly if you consider the rest of the text — merely as questioning the general's honesty, not his patriotism. But whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for air and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war's most enthusiastic supporters is pretty comical. It's all phony, of course. The war's backers are obviously delighted to have this ad from which they can make an issue. They wouldn't trade it for a week in Anbar province (a formerly troubled area of Iraq that is now, thanks to us, an Eden of peace and tranquillity where barely a car bomb disturbs the perfumed silence \ufffd or so they say). These days, mock outrage is used by every side of every dispute. It's fair enough to criticize something your opponent said while secretly thanking your lucky stars that he said it. The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material. When so many people are clamoring for a chance to swoon that they each have to take a number and when the landscape is so littered with folks lying prostrate and pretending to be dead that it starts to look like the end of a Civil War battle re-enactment, this isn't spontaneous mass outrage. This is choreography. The constant calls for political candidates to prove their bona fides by condemning or denouncing something somebody else said or to renounce a person's support or to return her tainted money are a tiresome new tic in American politics. They're turning politics into a game of "Mother, May I?" Did you say "Here is my plan for health-care reform"? Uh-oh, you were supposed to say "I condemn MoveOn.org's comments on General Petraeus, and here is my plan for health-care reform." All this drawing of uncrossable lines and issuing of fatuous fatwas is supposed to be a bad habit of the left. When right-wingers are attacking this habit rather than practicing it, they call it political correctness... [link\|http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1663424,00.html\|There's more]. Beep and his co-religionists are being disingenuous, as usual. cordially, Reminds me of jocularly addressing a college acquaintance, Tim Arndt, with a hearty "Arndt you Tim?" He fixed me for a long moment with an obviously well-practiced icy stare and then said "Oh. I get it." (beat) "Think of that all by yourself, did you?" Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Post #293,430 by bepatient 9/22/07 3:56:40 PM Reply	There you go again inventing a position for me by assuming I am in lockstep with a group that I am not. Again, it teeny short bursts for the reading challenged. 1) Moveon.org is with free speech rights to say whatever they want. 2) The candidates are free to respond in any way they see fit. 3) the play on his name, in all its cutesy rhymes, says BETRAY US. 4) the definition of traitor has been posted, containing the same words. Now on to the WISDOM OF SILENCE among presidential candidates. These are people aspiring to the job of CIC, they should dam well be able to take a position. As it turns out, most of them did. 2) It would do well for them to show support to these gentleman in face of >this type of attack. Take out the juvie name calling that easily translates to traitor and THERE IS NO ISSUE. To that point, I have stated I have NO ISSUE with >civil< disagreements such as those by Hillary stating that the facts presented are difficult to believe..putting me directly at odds with the posted article where Rudy uses this to slam her. In other words, don't pretend that you know my position because you obviously do not. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,431 by Another Scott 9/22/07 4:45:24 PM Reply	Ok, so I lied. I'm back in this thread - I hope you don't mind. Again, it teeny short bursts for the reading challenged. 1) Moveon.org is with free speech rights to say whatever they want. 2) The candidates are free to respond in any way they see fit. 3) the play on his name, in all its cutesy rhymes, says BETRAY US. 4) the definition of traitor has been posted, containing the same words. What about the 800 pound gorilla in the room? 5) Is it appropriate for [link\|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01585:\|HR 1585] to be changed with [link\|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02934:\|S.AMND.2934] or [link\|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02947:\|S.AMND.2947] at all? Why should the Senate be involved at all in commenting on MoveOn's newspaper ad? Given some of your [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=289548\|earlier] [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=278682\|comments] (as examples), I would think you wouldn't be all that enamored of the Congress wasting time and passing symbolic legislation. Why aren't you upset with Sen. Cornyn and his 6 co-sponsors (all Republicans, BTW) for wasting the Senate's time? Where's the indignation toward the "other" side? Your political "pessimism" seems to be highly directional. Maybe the Senate leadership or Rules Committee should have refused to let Cornyn bring his amendment to the floor, instead. I'm sure that would have gone over really well with the "conservatives", huh. Just curious. ;-) Cheers, Scott. (Who hopes to return to lurking on this thread.)
Post #293,439 by bepatient 9/22/07 8:00:41 PM Reply	Short answer (and no biggie, welcome back) No. You need to go to even earlier statements where it is my express belief that items need to be legislated 1 at a time and that tacking things (especially bs items like this) on to bills is not in our best interest. One only need to drive up the I78 corridor in WV to understand what pork can be attached by those in charge of appropriations. There is a reason why Bird will be elected even after he's embalmed. And just so you are aware, my comments here have been directed at candidates for POTUS, not at Congress. I don't think we have nearly enough time to get into that. It is simply, imo, imperative to the democratic candidates to not allow themselves to painted as weak on defense. While the country may not like the current situation we are in, being viewed as weak and unsupportive of the military has in the past and will continue to cost them elections. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,440 by Seamus 9/22/07 8:08:06 PM Reply	To me it is just as important a candidate support free speech and fight the bullshit partisan politics of trying to tar the democratic candidates with the moveon.org ad as it is to be strong on defense. Seamus
Post #293,441 by bepatient 9/22/07 8:50:41 PM Reply	That hasn't panned out historically but hey, things could change. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,442 by Another Scott 9/22/07 8:51:00 PM Reply	2008 is not 1988. Thanks. WV and NJ are examples of party politics that have gone too far. The present administration is another. ;-) While history sometimes seems to repeat itself, it's more often the case that Twain was right: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Dukakis isn't running. The Soviet Union isn't imploding with a Republican in office. Etc. Comparing the 2000 and 2004 elections, and the turnout, it seems to me that much of the electorate is becoming less receptive to sloganeering. There are too many examples of disasters under Bush for people to take superficially appealing slogans at face value. The web is making it possible for small outfits like [link\|http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/aboutus\|Rockridge Institute] to have an [link\|http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2006/07/at_a_loss_for_words.html\|impact] on the debate and illustrate the importance of language in framing the issues (something that Rove and the late Lee Atwater have known for a while). IOW, the Republicans no longer have a monopoly on "Morning in America". Of course it ultimately comes down to the candidates and the circumstances around the election, but I really don't think that much of anyone is going to care about who voted for the two amendments. Does anyone care that Hillary never really "apologized" for her Iraq AUMF vote, even though it was a talking-point for several weeks? By November 2008 the MoveOn ad will be ancient history. I think people realize that being "strong on defense" is more than symbolism and empty slogans, and there's more than enough [link\|http://the-filibuster.blogspot.com/2006/01/republicans-weak-on-defence.html\|ammunition on the other side] if they want to play that game. Remember that even though Kerry was attacked mercilessly on his defense policies, he nearly won. The trends is even more in the Democrat's favor this time. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #293,446 by jb4 9/22/07 11:08:52 PM Reply	Well, by that definition, MoveOn.org is right He is a traitor. Just like his commander in ~~chimp~~ chief. There. Clear enough for you? jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
Post #293,451 by bepatient 9/23/07 12:38:13 AM Reply	Thanks for the affirmation its not always that you agree with me. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,950 by jb4 9/30/07 10:35:09 PM Reply	NO...but it does happen The Cubs are in the playoffs, after all... ;-) jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)

Welcome to IWETHEY!