Prime example:
The crime of treason is not necessarily the same as the definition of treason.
Secondary example:
There are all kinds of crimes where people can do something similar, but not cross the threshhold requiring or allowing criminal prosecution.
Name one.
Tertiary example:
She supplied the exact definition I've been using. Want to argue with the librarian go ahead.
If, as I doubt, you are capable of reading with comprehension, compare what Mary Anne said here with what I posted as a reply to Tom here. The only difference you will find is that my post is more detailed.
You make no points, in debate or otherwise, by talking out of both sides of your ass at the same time. You dismiss your opponents with accusations of "group think", then seem dismayed that they might actually be capable of independent thought.
You have also not replied to my post just above with a factual example of how dissent has encouraged the enemy. You have merely reiterated the same opinion we all have heard before, whether or not we agree with it. Repetition is not verification; opinion is not fact.
I will concede this, and this alone:
Does that make us obligated to blindly support the presient? - NO!. But is does make us obligated to judiciously and with good support argue against his policies rather than playing political games based on the usual low accuracy level of political slanders common in our system. even if you feel the war was wrong from the start and unrelated to the war on terror and have a very valid basis for opposing the president you should still base your arguements on well supported facts rather than slanders.
But, just before I wash my hands of you, I will remind you that this argument began with you defending Gary's use of "political slanders".
Make sure you wipe both cheeks.