- Joined
- Mar 31, 2018
- Messages
- 60,296
- Reaction score
- 6,312
- Location
- Norcross, Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
No, I was asking if that was the case.
So you must have thought it was, or least suggested that it was, otherwise why ask ?
Your backtracking is comical
Be a man and just own it
****ing expletives aren't ****ing lies, kid.
They're the sound of defeat, as is your condescending tone - "kid"
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - quote attributed to Socrates
But not the type we've been talking about. Straight ****ing line. Walk it.
Stealing secrets for America's enemies can indeed involve the threat of force
The point is that, unlike a coup or the overthrow of a legitimately elected government, a threat of force is not a prerequisite. Whereas any attempt to overthrow such a government does (involve force oir a threat of force)
Learn the difference, and possibly improve your reading comprehension in the process
When did I say this?
When did you say that a coup is only treason if it includes a threat of force - in post #97, when you said"
If it was a violent overthrow, involving at least the threatened use of force, it's conceivable it could be treason, but I wouldn't bet the farm.
More memory failure from you
If that's what you need to tell yourself, go ahead and tell yourself that.
No, I'm telling you
You cannot (ie: you are unable to) give examples of a military takeover (otherwise known as a coup) that includes:
1. A use or threat of use of force
2. No force and no threat of the use of force
QED: You admit, by default, that you are wrong.
Last edited: