Replies

Perhaps you have never explicitly used the term "traitor" to describe the "Move On Freepers," but your statements about them clearly are meant to leave the impression that they are enemies of the troops, or at least that they "put politics 1st, then money, then the troops." In post 461 of this thread you said that they "are out to sabotage the 2006 and 2008 elections" and posted that over a photo of John Kerry stabbing a soldier in the back. Is that supposed to mean something other than treason? The only way you could imply it more strongly is to post a photo of Benedict Arnold and label it "18th Century Move On Freeper." If you're surprised I'm getting the "They're traitors" vibe from your posts, maybe you should read back through some of them and think about it a bit.

Yes, some of the people who disagree with you on Murtha and Kerry are hostile about it. That doesn't make them Kerry and Murtha's allies. If a prosecutor doesn't want to take a case to court because they won't get a conviction, that doesn't make them a criminal, or a lover of crime. Yet when someone believes that your tactics will not gain anything for the troops or the conservative cause, you publicly associate them with people who are guilty of treason, and often do so with illustrations that show someone committing treasonous acts. As I said, it would be difficult for you to imply it more strongly.

If you think these people really are DUers, then get some Freeper researchers together and see if you can bust them. My problem is I'd bet you'd lump me in with the "Move On Freepers" because I think there's no chance in the world we'd ever get Kerry removed from the Senate and shouldn't waste our time. Let me tell you, I sure as heck haven't spent the last four years doing troop support work so somebody can lump me in with John Kerry and Jack Murtha.