A question about the rules.

[howard112211]

Why is there no rule banning people from accusing other people of being supporters of foreign enemies of the USA?

The reason why I ask is this:

We have a rule against "advocating military defeat of the USA". A post in support of an enemy of the USA would thus be a rule violation. By the usual procedure, posters should thus alert a post if they deem the contents inappropriate, rather than calling it out.

I see the problem that there are a few posters here who routinely equate any form of opposition to a particular war that the US is involved in with support for the enemy. If one thinks this through, by this definition any war opposition would be in some sense equivalent to advocating defeat of the USA, and thus a rule violation.

This whole thing is an accusation that is commenly used by the right wing. IMO the arguing table is tilted because the rules forbid accusing someone of sounding like a freeper in return, which often would be the proper response to such an accusation.

So in short: Why is the phrase "more crap from the pro-Ghaddafi lovers" permitted but "more crap from the Freeper-light types" not? They are the two sides of one particular coin and should either both be allowed or both be banned.

[Skinner]

1. I think that would already be against our rules. (nt)

[howard112211]

2. Thanks.

And I might add: Congrats to DU3. Looks nice.