[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 24, 2:08*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 23, 2:42*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:41*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 22, 10:07*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 23, 12:00*am, ScottW2 wrote:

cheney accused Congress of "undermining *the troops".

*OMG. *A calamity of epic proportions.

Calling Congress "traitors" in a time of war is very serious, 2pid.

*Poor shhh. *All this argument does is reveal your confusion.

LoL.

There are words and there are definitions.

Indeed.

Sometimes the definition of a word changes with context.

No, it doesn't. A car is still a car. Irony is irony. Mockery is
mockery.

Treason is still treason and traitor is still traitor.

And so on. That's why smart people choose their words carefully, not
all willy-nilly like you do.

Sometimes words have more than one meaning, such as a hockey player
"blasting" a puck from the blue line. I am not aware of another
meaning for the word "undermine" when used by cheney toward members of
Congress. Perhaps he actually meant "I'm a secret Democrat" but that
is not what he said.

But I'll bite: why don't you give me the context that makes cheney's
accusation of treason something else?

Sometimes the magnitude of the undermining rises to the
level of treason and sometimes it does not.

Ah, I see. We can undermine our troops just a little and that's OK.
There's a line (which you know) where it becomes "treason" and the
perpetrator a "traitor".

And if some dumb**** conservative levels that charge it's all in
"context".

Got it. LoL.

Clearly, your RIP undermined our troops

BZZZZZT.

It had no greater affect on our troops than any other major's (or
colonel's or general's) retirement and there have been thousands since
9/11.

What a moron. LoL.