Sofia wrote:I think each person knows it (dishonor) when they see it, depending on their own set of standards.
This is entirely meaningless. Apart from having asked Fox for her definition, so that one may judge at what point she condemns dissent--this reply of yours is simply the restatement of a snide tactic to discredit dissent while continuing to wrap oneself in the flag of american republican virtues of democratic tolerance. In fact, in a strictly constitutional sense, there is
nothing one could
say publicly which could be considered "dishonorable" dissent. All speech which does not constitute (in O. W. Holmes' now famous phrase) "a clear and present danger" to the republic is legal, no matter how dissentient. It is from that point that the Right, in a frantic rear-guard to retain the moral high ground of tolerating dissent while condemning treason attempt to insinuate that any criticism of an administration's military policy, or the doctrine in use by the military, gets GI's killed. This is a nasty, mean-spritied
and unsupportable contention which constitutes one of the Right's favorite gutter tactics.
So if you want to contend that there could be dissent which "dishonors the nation," you need to define it pretty damned clearly--otherwise you're engaged in schoolyard inuendo and libel.
