Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

NoJusticeNoPeace

(5,018 posts)
2. I was just informed by a DU member that these two things are the same
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 01:41 PM
Apr 2015

and I am so awestruck at how absurd that comment is, I dont know how to respond

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
6. I don't think "traitor" is a legal term, is it?
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 02:24 PM
Apr 2015

"Treason" is, sure, but "traitor"?

Even if it does have a technical legal definition, that doesn't invalidate the colloquial usage.

still_one

(92,273 posts)
9. You are right, I mixed it up thanks. I guess that speed reading I took did
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 02:29 PM
Apr 2015

do sqwat for my comprehension, but boy I sure can read a book fast, just don't know what I am reading

dumbcat

(2,120 posts)
11. Interesting question
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 02:41 PM
Apr 2015
Even if it does have a technical legal definition, that doesn't invalidate the colloquial usage.


Would you agree that the technical legal definition should trump the colloquial usage when discussing legal issues?

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
12. I think that it should do so in a technical legal discussion.
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 02:49 PM
Apr 2015

Which is similar to your phrasing, but possibly slightly more restrictive.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
5. Unfortunately, the answer is "Obviously Fonda".
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 02:23 PM
Apr 2015

Fonda visited and supported a country the US was at war with.

Boehner visited and supported an allied country trying to persuade America to change its foreign policy.

The two are not comparable.

still_one

(92,273 posts)
10. The argument some make is it wasn't a declared war, however, I don't know if
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 02:38 PM
Apr 2015

traitor applies in either case, though Fonda actually violated some laws. Boehner didn't

That still doesn't mean Boehners' actions were not controversial

PatrickforO

(14,582 posts)
8. I vote for Boehner. These people need to be tried for treason.
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 02:28 PM
Apr 2015

I suspect I'll offend some here, but Jane Fonda wasn't much better. She should NEVER have stood beside soldiers of a country with whom we were at (police action, I think they called it) war, and criticized her own government.

Yeah, I know the government was wrong and the war immoral, but you don't do THAT.

I like Jane, but in this case she acted very wrongly. There are lots of people I knew who disagreed mightily with that stupid, divisive war, but they still went. Some of them didn't come back. Some came back maimed. And they didn't ask to go. Most were drafted. But they went. Jane's action was wrong because it hurts them and their memory.

She could have protested plenty right here at home.

 

NM_Birder

(1,591 posts)
13. this is a "likable" comparison to a turd, .
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 03:17 PM
Apr 2015

and bowl splatter. put what ever sweetener you want on either one, they are both still nothing but shit, squeezed from the butthole of self righteous ignorance.

her appearance with the viet cong, and her modeling career on AA artillery is all anybody talks about, and that is enough. But few want to remember that she was given a note from an american POW, that she promptly handed over to the VC.

Fuck jane fonda.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Who's a bigger traitor?