[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Did you really say Sen. John Kerry is or was a "traitor"? On what evidence
do you base that accusation?

BTW, Kerry served in our nation's armed forces, unlike you. He also chose
a career in public service, unlike you. And he doesn't hide behind a
computer and fling outrageous accusations, unlike you and the "swift
boaters".

So tell us, O Rabid Pooch -- how is Kerry a "traitor"?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Yapper woofed:

Did you really say Sen. John Kerry is or was a "traitor"? On what evidence
do you base that accusation?

His statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22,
1971.
[snip details of atrocities]

Kerry is either a war criminal or a treasonous liar.

This is where you and the rational world part company. It was a simple
question:

On what evidence do you base that accusation that Kerry is a traitor?

You copy-pasted his testimony about atrocities. Are you saying he lied to
a Congressional committee, and that's why he's a "traitor"? Or is he a
"traitor" because he told the truth? Either way, a rational person
(hahahaha) would be able to explain exactly why testifying in a
Congressional inquiry, either truthfully or falsely, is "treasonous".

To refresh your 'understanding' of the term, treason means helping your
country's enemy at the expense of your own country. Sorry to overtax your
'brain' in the middle of your frenzy of chauvinistic yapping.



--

"Less Thinking and More Yapping -- Vote Republican!"
-- Scottie Witlessmongrel's vision
for a better Amerika

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

More mindless yapping from the Yapmeister.

*Kerry is either a war criminal or a treasonous liar. *

This is where you and the rational world part company. It was a simple
question:

On what evidence do you base that accusation that Kerry is a traitor?

His own admitted false accusations

Since you only posted your copy-paste of Kerry's testimony, you must
believe that somewhere in those four paragraphs is "admitted false
accusations". Speaking for myself (and, presumably, other Normals who read
human language at an adult level), I can't find such an admission. Thus
you failed to substantiate your heinous allegation.

And to compound it, you now bark this crapola:

undermining our troops in time of war.

I know it will tax you unbearably to explain why you barked that, but
please try anyway. If you can actually show that Kerry's testimony
"undermined" our troops, bear in 'mind' that for such conduct to rise to
the level of "treason", it would necessarily entail the intent to harm our
country. You of all nitwits should know that simply yapping out your anger
or other unfocused emotions does not constitute "treason" no matter how
offensive some prig in Arizona finds it.

Yap, yap, yap. Nothing but yapping and not a shred of truth.

You're a liar and a defamer, Witless. If you had tried to enlist in the
armed forces despite your cowardly nature, they would have rejected you
because of your sociopathic tendencies. I hope your poor wife knows a good
plastic surgeon, because the beating you're about to lay on her will take
a heap o' skill to undo.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 22, 11:17*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 22, 2:55*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:





Yapper woofed:

Did you really say Sen. John Kerry is or was a "traitor"? On what evidence
do you base that accusation?

His statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22,
1971.

[snip details of atrocities]

*Kerry is either a war criminal or a treasonous liar. *

This is where you and the rational world part company. It was a simple
question:

On what evidence do you base that accusation that Kerry is a traitor?

His own admitted false accusations undermining our troops in time of
war.
(See sssshhhh for definition of undermining).

But what cheney said was not. And Congress has a right to vote "no" on
something which cheney then called "undermining the troops" and
therefore accused them of 'treason' using the definition you use to
'prove' Kerry is a 'traitor'.

Hm. That looks pretty hypocritical.

(PS: I knew why you 'thought' Kerry was a 'traitor'. I just wanted to
see you deny the definition on the one hand and affirm it on the
other. LoL. Thanks for the chuckle.)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 23, 12:00*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 22, 9:41*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:17*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 22, 2:55*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Yapper woofed:

Did you really say Sen. John Kerry is or was a "traitor"? On what evidence
do you base that accusation?

His statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22,
1971.

[snip details of atrocities]

*Kerry is either a war criminal or a treasonous liar. *

This is where you and the rational world part company. It was a simple
question:

On what evidence do you base that accusation that Kerry is a traitor?

His own admitted false accusations undermining our troops in time of
war.
(See sssshhhh for definition of undermining).

But what cheney said was not.

*not what?

Accusing Congressmen of being 'traitorous'.

*And Congress has a right to vote "no" on
something which cheney then called "undermining the troops" and
therefore accused them of 'treason' using the definition you use to
'prove' Kerry is a 'traitor'.

*You want to rewrite the constitution and remove from Congress the
power of appropriation....well, good luck with that.

Duh.

See...on the one hand Congress is acting with authority granted by the
constitution.
On the other we have Kerry falsely accusing virtually the entire armed
forces with war crimes. * What part of the constitution granted him
authority to do that?
Obviously your comparison is absurd.

cheney accused Congress of "undermining the troops".

Using your own definition Kerry, cheney just called those who
voted "no" or voiced dissent 'traitors'.

You had claimed that never happened ("Give me examples!" and then "You
went all the way back to Kerry? LoL. Get over that campaign".)

Now, though, you use the exact same definition against Kerry as I did
against cheney. I knew you'd prove my point for me. LoL.

Hopefully there won't be another John Kerry to smear your service or
maybe you plan to be the next John "Traitor" Kerry? *Let me guess,
CAS *will be your .50 cal machine gun.

Don't guess, 2pid. It merely makes you look even dumber. LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Yappity-yappity-DUH-woof!

More mindless yapping from the Yapmeister.

*Kerry is either a war criminal or a treasonous liar. *

This is where you and the rational world part company. It was a simple
question:

On what evidence do you base that accusation that Kerry is a traitor?

His own admitted false accusations

Since you only posted your copy-paste of Kerry's testimony, you must
believe that somewhere in those four paragraphs is "admitted false
accusations".

Try reading the post and following the links or better yet, do your
own research.

So you admit you're too damned stupid to connect the dots you 'think' you
see as a pattern.

Who's the biggest idiot of them all? (That's rhetorical. woof!)


--
" I think you consistently show yourself incapable of substantive fact
based debate. You want to take this intellectually infantile approach
of attacking the messenger as you can't or won't debate the issues
of the subject."
-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, June 14, 2009

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 23, 12:28*am, George M. Middius
wrote:
Yappity-yappity-DUH-woof!





More mindless yapping from the Yapmeister.

*Kerry is either a war criminal or a treasonous liar. *

This is where you and the rational world part company. It was a simple
question:

On what evidence do you base that accusation that Kerry is a traitor?

His own admitted false accusations

Since you only posted your copy-paste of Kerry's testimony, you must
believe that somewhere in those four paragraphs is "admitted false
accusations".

*Try reading the post and following the links or better yet, do your
own research. *

So you admit you're too damned stupid to connect the dots you 'think' you
see as a pattern.

Who's the biggest idiot of them all? (That's rhetorical. woof!)

2pid still has not admitted that he was wrong regarding cheney's
accusation of dissenting members of Congress being 'traitors'.

And I used 2pid's definition and everything!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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:

On Jun 22, 9:41*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:17*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 22, 2:55*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Yapper woofed:

Did you really say Sen. John Kerry is or was a "traitor"? On what evidence
do you base that accusation?

His statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22,
1971.

[snip details of atrocities]

*Kerry is either a war criminal or a treasonous liar. *

This is where you and the rational world part company. It was a simple
question:

On what evidence do you base that accusation that Kerry is a traitor?

His own admitted false accusations undermining our troops in time of
war.
(See sssshhhh for definition of undermining).

But what cheney said was not.

*not what?

Accusing Congressmen of being 'traitorous'.

*And Congress has a right to vote "no" on
something which cheney then called "undermining the troops" and
therefore accused them of 'treason' using the definition you use to
'prove' Kerry is a 'traitor'.

*You want to rewrite the constitution and remove from Congress the
power of appropriation....well, good luck with that.

Duh.

Chirp chirp. LoL.

See...on the one hand Congress is acting with authority granted by the
constitution.
On the other we have Kerry falsely accusing virtually the entire armed
forces with war crimes. * What part of the constitution granted him
authority to do that?
Obviously your comparison is absurd.

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.

Using your own definition Kerry, cheney just called those who
voted "no" or voiced dissent 'traitors'.

*LoL. *I thought it was your definition. *Oh well.

OK then, so we agree that Kerry isn't a "traitor". Oh well. LoL.

You had claimed that never happened

*I claimed what you claimed I claimed never happened. Got it?

Um, no. You claimed that nobody accuses Dems of being "traitors" or
"Treasonous".

I proved otherwise. Got it?

*("Give me examples!" and then "You
went all the way back to Kerry? LoL. Get over that campaign".)

Now, though, you use the exact same definition against Kerry as I did
against cheney.

I used your definition, 2pid. If you agree that Kerry isn't a
"traitor" then I'll agree that cheney didn't accuse dissenting
Congressmen of being "traitors".

If you persist with your sladerous accusations against Kerry, then by
your own definition (reinforced, what, yesterday?) cheney is
attempting to stifle dissent by slandering Congressmen who dare
dissent.

Get it? LoL.

*So you claim in childish semantic fashion.

So I proved in an adult fashion.

Duh.

*I knew you'd prove my point for me. LoL.

*You can't do it yourself so now you have to claim someone else has
done it for you. *Truly pathetic.

LOL!

Hopefully there won't be another John Kerry to smear your service or
maybe you plan to be the next John "Traitor" Kerry? *Let me guess,
CAS *will be your .50 cal machine gun.

Don't guess, 2pid. It merely makes you look even dumber. LoL.

* *Maybe you should explain to your buddies in arms, if you have any,
about what a war crime is it to use CAS to save their asses when some
stupid major f'd up the intel.

I never said it was a "war crime" to use CAS, 2pid. I have said it is
often counterproductive to the overall mission.

And it wasn't "intel", dum-dum. It was extremely poor planning.
There's a "major" difference between the two. LoL.

Better planning may very well have made the use of CAS unneccesary.

No wonder you come off so stupid. You don't even understand the basic
argument. LoL.

[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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 24, 2:44Â*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 24, 12:31Â*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 24, 2:08Â*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

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

On Jun 22, 10:07Â*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 23, 12:00Â*am, ScottW2 wrote:
cheney accused Congress of "undermining Â*the troops".

Â*OMG. Â*A calamity of epic proportions.

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

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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 25, 1:52*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 24, 1:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 24, 2:44*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 24, 12:31*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
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.

and stupidity is stupidity especially when it's yours.

You just shot your own argument down, dum-dum.

*You still haven't figured out the simple difference between legal
opposition to a war
and false accusations of war crimes in time of war.

What I understand is that cheney said Congress was "undermining the
troops". You said Kerry was "undermining the troops". You also said
that republicans haven't falsely accused Dems of being traitors or
treasonous. You were wrong.

BTW, as far as "false accusations" you're wrong there too:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...0,690199.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,0,92368.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,5332923.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,5712402.story

This report is based in part on records of the Vietnam War Crimes
Working Group, on file at the National Archives in College Park, Md.
The collection includes 241 case summaries that chronicle more than
300 substantiated atrocities by U.S. forces and 500 unconfirmed
allegations.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,6850596.story

There were no "false" accusations.

*That you cannot see that difference must be frightening to anyone who
serves with you.

Oh lord. LoL.

I have a reputation (found on my always-outstanding OERs) of being
"cool under pressure, very intelligent, rational and fair, a solid
leader and one of the best tactical planners" that these officers had
ever rated.

What did your OERs say, 2pid? I think I know. LoL.

"An emotional trainwreck. Can't focus. Lashes out at the slightest
provocation. Cannot digest or process even simple information.
Argumentative with superiors and subordinates alike. Should be tested
for autism as he's frequently found spinning in circles. DO NOT
PROMOTE." LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 26, 1:23*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 25, 7:18*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

What I understand is that cheney said Congress was "undermining the
troops". You said Kerry was "undermining the troops". You also said
that republicans haven't falsely accused Dems of being traitors or
treasonous. You were wrong.

BTW, as far as "false accusations" you're wrong there too:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...-vietnam20aug2...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...-vietnam6aug06...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...-vietside20aug...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...-vietcases6aug...

This report is based in part on records of the Vietnam War Crimes
Working Group, on file at the National Archives in College Park, Md.
The collection includes 241 case summaries that chronicle more than
300 substantiated atrocities by U.S. forces and 500 unconfirmed
allegations.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...-vietbox20aug2...

There were no "false" accusations.

*Kerry accused every officer at all levels. *What you've provided are
what appear to be numerous cases but in reality for a 10 year war with
troop levels at times of over 500K it simply isn't close to the scope
of the Kerry slander.

There are 300 documented cases in the archive of confirmed atrocities
plus 500 unsubstantiated cases. Let's use the lower, confirmed number,
OK, 2pid?

Even if we accept your rather dim view that this was over a 10-year
period (which it wasn't) that amounts to 30 atrocities per year or
over two atrocities per month, every month, for 10 years.

But we all know that the war ramped up after 1965 so we're probably
really looking at 1966 or 1967 through 1971 or 1972. It's more likely
a maximum six year spread. Now we're at over four confirmed atrocities
per month, every month.

If you read the links I provided you'll see confirmed cases of COs at
every level actively covering up reports of atrocities, not following
through, persecuting the reporter of the events, etc.

So what apparently really REALLY ****es you off is that Kerry may have
exaggerated? Are you mad because if he had said "We're only doing
atrocities on average four times per month (confirmed)" you would not
get angry? LoL.

Now add in the other 500 and we have 800. Assuming those were also
true that's eleven atrocities per month every month for six years.
What we can say with certainty is that we averaged over four per month
every month for six years. Smart people would realize that it was
likely some of the other 500 were real, and that there werer others
that didn't get reported. We can agree the true number lies between
for and eleven PER MONTH.

Where is the "slander"? LMAO!

What a moron.

*That you cannot see that difference must be frightening to anyone who
serves with you.

Oh lord. LoL.

I have a reputation (found on my always-outstanding OERs) of being
"cool under pressure, very intelligent, rational and fair, a solid
leader and one of the best tactical planners" that these officers had
ever rated.

* Which of course is in complete conflict with your usenet persona.

IY(S)O. LoL.

* So you're really only a psycho on the 'net. *I'm so relieved.

There's only one person here who 'thinks' I'm a "psycho".

Fortunately, that person is too stupid to have his opinion matter. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 26, 2:27*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 26, 11:56*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 26, 1:23*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 25, 7:18*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
What I understand is that cheney said Congress was "undermining the
troops". You said Kerry was "undermining the troops". You also said
that republicans haven't falsely accused Dems of being traitors or
treasonous. You were wrong.

BTW, as far as "false accusations" you're wrong there too:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...-vietnam20aug2...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...-vietnam6aug06...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...-vietside20aug...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...-vietcases6aug...

This report is based in part on records of the Vietnam War Crimes
Working Group, on file at the National Archives in College Park, Md..
The collection includes 241 case summaries that chronicle more than
300 substantiated atrocities by U.S. forces and 500 unconfirmed
allegations.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...-vietbox20aug2...

There were no "false" accusations.

*Kerry accused every officer at all levels. *What you've provided are
what appear to be numerous cases but in reality for a 10 year war with
troop levels at times of over 500K it simply isn't close to the scope
of the Kerry slander.

There are 300 documented cases in the archive of confirmed atrocities
plus 500 unsubstantiated cases. Let's use the lower, confirmed number,
OK, 2pid?

Even if we accept your rather dim view that this was over a 10-year
period (which it wasn't) that amounts to 30 atrocities per year or
over two atrocities per month, every month, for 10 years.

*2 claimed atrocities/month.

Not "claimed", 2pid. "Documented". "Proven". "No doubt".

And I note you use the 10-year number. I'm sure it was more like four
per month. Consider that these were the one *reported* and
*documented*.

Do you believe that it's possible that rape statistics in the US are
higher than those that are *reported* and *proven*, dum-dum? LoL.

*Sounds very similar to the rate of
claims (which mostly turned out to be false) to the height of the Iraq
war.

No falsehood. "Documented". "Proven". "No doubt".

The other 500 probably never will be proven with the passage of time,
but with 300 *proven* atrocities it's safe to assume some, if not all,
of the others occured too.

Duh.

*So how many atrocities/squad/month is that? *.0000 What?

Quit obfuscating. The fact of the matter is that Kerry told the truth
and you can't handle that.

Duh.

How many atrocities for any squads typical tour is that?

What number is acceptable to you? And don't overlook the fact that
whistleblowers were punished by their superior officers, another claim
Kerry made that was the truth. Remember, dimbulb? "Kerry accused every
officer at all levels." LoL.

Um, idiot? We were trained on this at OCS. The US Army accepts that it
happened. Why can't you? LoL.

*How many actocities will there be on your upcoming watch?

None that will be covered up or ignored on my watch, 2pid.

What a dumb thing to say.

Imbecile. LoL.