Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Botnst
I don't believe I said that, you might want to check.
I reject your premise and so therefore your conclusion is also unacceptible. But I also don't want to get bogged-down into one of those pointless, endless ping-pong games and for that reason I didn't address that particular issue...
|
If you don't want to get into a "pointless" conversation, then you should be willing to admit the logical conclusion of your statements.
The unmistakable meaning of your replies to t walgamuth and me is that the President owes no duty of good faith to the soldiers. Under your reasoning, whether the President acts with good faith and fairness doesn't matter because the soldiers gave an oath of loyalty. IMHO, that is a twisted concept of loyalty. Far from excusing the President's bad faith, the soldiers' oath of loyalty is the source of the President's duty of good faith.
I assume that you reject the notion that W acted in bad faith, but that doesn't really matter. Under your logic, whether W acted in bad faith is irrelevant.