Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Remember that story about the IRS commissioner signing in for 157 visits to the White House in Obama's first term? Yeah, just kidding it was actually 11   (theatlantic.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, President Obama, White House, IRS, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Douglas Shulman, situation room, Easter Egg Roll  
•       •       •

2386 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 May 2013 at 1:07 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



298 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-31 04:50:55 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Tillman died by American hands too, so does many Americans from friendly fire. So then why are you ignoring them?

i'm not ignoring them. this was about obama. tillman died under bush.

So any friendly fire deaths in war is a "legitimate controversy" against the president?

FlashHarry:
my initial statement - the one that got you all frothed up talked about "fake scandals." and while i admit i should have said "controversies" instead of "scandals," the use of the word "legitimate" is NOT a 'weasel word,' IT WAS MY WHOLE F*CKING POINT. try to keep up.


Yes it was your original point. Then you said it was wrong and you meant controversy and then when I pointed out that made no sense you went to "legitimate controversy".  So now you are back to your original point that later you said was misstated?

FlashHarry: i agree that extrajudicial killings via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.


Once again why are you only upset about the American deaths that were done via drone? You are aware more have been caused by NON-drones in friendly fire?


You actually think the people who are upset in this controversy are upset for even the friendly fire deaths like you are portraying? I don't think that is the case.
 
2013-05-31 04:53:57 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Yes once again, if you don't care it's about DRONES why do you keep saying it is about DRONES!

the operative word was killing - i simply copy/pasted my initial statement, amended for semantics. i have MANY TIMES said that drones weren't my point. but if you are too lazy to take that into account, here is my statement, amended a SECOND time:

i agree that extrajudicial  killings via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

again, for the third time, i invite you to argue my point. which has not changed in substance.


Sorry why are the troubling again? You haven't explained except for bringing you points that have been misleading at best.
 
2013-05-31 04:56:12 PM  

Corvus: So any friendly fire deaths in war is a "legitimate controversy" against the president?


did pat tillman die as the result of president bush directly ordering the assassination of an american citizen? if not, then STFU

Corvus: Yes it was your original point. Then you said it was wrong and you meant controversy and then when I pointed out that made no sense you went to "legitimate controversy".  So now you are back to your original point that later you said was misstated?


wtf are you talking about? can you read? i have reposted my amended statement three times so far - why do you refuse to address it?

Corvus: Once again why are you only upset about the American deaths that were done via drone? You are aware more have been caused by NON-drones in friendly fire?


Corvus: Once again why are you only upset about the American deaths that were done via drone? You are aware more have been caused by NON-drones in friendly fire?


i have said MULTIPLE TIMES that drones aren't the issue. i have amended my initial statement MULTIPLE TIMES to reflect this.

for the fourth time, i post it here:

i agree that extrajudicial killings via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

you'll notice that the corrections i have made to satisfy you have not changed its initial meaning. why do you refuse to address it?
 
2013-05-31 04:57:51 PM  

FlashHarry: UNLESS THEY ARE ACTIVELY TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST AMERICAN TROOPS ON AN ACTUAL BATTLEFIELD.


So we can't shoot at the quartermasters and supply depots, or communications assets, or command and control centers, or the commanders and upper echelon of a nation's army that we are at war with because they're not "on an actual battlefield"?

That's no way to win a war, soldier.
 
2013-05-31 04:59:03 PM  

Corvus: Sorry why are the troubling again? You haven't explained except for bringing you points that have been misleading at best.


for the fifth time, rephrased this time to remove any ambiguity:

i agree that extrajudicial killings is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

the only things that have changed are the following:

• i changed "executions" to "killings"
• i changed "scandals" to "controversies"
• i removed "via drone strikes" (which was only in there because that was the current preferred method of extrajudicial killing)

so.... for the fifth time - will you or will you not argue against the above bolded statement?
 
2013-05-31 05:00:33 PM  

regindyn: simplicimus: 11, 118, 157, what does it matter? Why was this guy talking to his boss in the first place?

You must work at a dysfunctional shiathole of a business.


the joke flew right by you
 
2013-05-31 05:01:48 PM  

Deucednuisance: So we can't shoot at the quartermasters and supply depots, or communications assets, or command and control centers, or the commanders and upper echelon of a nation's army that we are at war with because they're not "on an actual battlefield"?


no we don't. it's against the geneva conventions, i believe, to go into a rear area and simply shoot somebody who is not trying to kill at you (walking up to the quartermaster and executing him, for instance). i'm not saying it hasn't happened; i'm sure it has. but at the very least, you'd be investigated.
 
2013-05-31 05:04:08 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So any friendly fire deaths in war is a "legitimate controversy" against the president?

did pat tillman die as the result of president bush directly ordering the assassination of an american citizen? if not, then STFU


NEITHER DID THE OTHER 3 GUYS YOU LISTED!!!!

You are being so dishonest. The 3 Americans dead count for Obama who were NOT targeted but they don't magically count for anyone else. Why is that?
 
2013-05-31 05:06:59 PM  

FlashHarry: Mr. Holder also wrote that United States forces had killed three other Americans who "were not specifically targeted." (emphasis mine)


Accidents are not executions, you know.
 
2013-05-31 05:09:56 PM  

FlashHarry: no we don't. it's against the geneva conventions, i believe,


I believe you are mistaken.  Feel free to cite anything you got to support your claims.

Change "supply depots" to "ammo dumps".    That change anything?  If so, why?

Don't take further silence as shiatting and running.  It's quitting time on the East Coast, I'm going home.
 
2013-05-31 05:10:18 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So any friendly fire deaths in war is a "legitimate controversy" against the president?

did pat tillman die as the result of president bush directly ordering the assassination of an american citizen? if not, then STFU



But they count for Obama, why again?

FlashHarry: In his letter to Congressional leaders, Mr. Holder confirmed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who died in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen. Mr. Holder also wrote that United States forces had killed three other Americans who "were not specifically targeted." (emphasis mine)


You keep doing this where your rules change from if we are talking about Obama "Non-targeted" victims count but if we are talking about other presidents they don't.

You admitted 3 of the 4 of your "non-combatant" Americans were not even targeted. And the 4th you refuse to say if they are a combatant or not even though they ran military operations for the enemy against the United States and admit they could not just be rounded up by law enforcement like you said should have been done.

You keep making rules and I point out that those rules either make no sense or a being followed you keep trying to reword the rules or change the rules.
 
2013-05-31 05:10:32 PM  

FlashHarry: Deucednuisance: So we can't shoot at the quartermasters and supply depots, or communications assets, or command and control centers, or the commanders and upper echelon of a nation's army that we are at war with because they're not "on an actual battlefield"?

no we don't. it's against the geneva conventions, i believe, to go into a rear area and simply shoot somebody who is not trying to kill at you (walking up to the quartermaster and executing him, for instance). i'm not saying it hasn't happened; i'm sure it has. but at the very least, you'd be investigated.


lolwhat?
If you're in uniform (minus the red cross on your lid) you have a bullseye on you.
Of course, the Geneva convention is about as relevant as quantum entanglement is to gophers.
 
2013-05-31 05:13:16 PM  

Corvus: NEITHER DID THE OTHER 3 GUYS YOU LISTED!!!!


YES THEY DID

THEY DIED AS THE RESULT OF A DIRECT ASSASSINATION ORDER FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA

pat tillman did not die as the result of a direct assassination order from president bush. he died in a friendly fire incident DURING A WAR.

for the SIXTH time:

i agree that extrajudicial killings is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

will you or will you not argue against the above bolded statement?
 
2013-05-31 05:14:01 PM  

FlashHarry: Deucednuisance: So we can't shoot at the quartermasters and supply depots, or communications assets, or command and control centers, or the commanders and upper echelon of a nation's army that we are at war with because they're not "on an actual battlefield"?

no we don't. it's against the geneva conventions, i believe, to go into a rear area and simply shoot somebody who is not trying to kill at you (walking up to the quartermaster and executing him, for instance). i'm not saying it hasn't happened; i'm sure it has. but at the very least, you'd be investigated.


That's wrong. Your impression on how wars are fought is very naive. We bomb the shiat out of places to get at military targets the idea we don't if someone is not actively holding a gun to you is bullshiat.

Sure if his hands are up and he gives up we take prisoners but if they are stationed at some military target we bomb the shiat out of them.

Look at WWII we leveled entire towns.
 
2013-05-31 05:19:12 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: NEITHER DID THE OTHER 3 GUYS YOU LISTED!!!!

YES THEY DID

THEY DIED AS THE RESULT OF A DIRECT ASSASSINATION ORDER FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA

pat tillman did not die as the result of a direct assassination order from president bush. he died in a friendly fire incident DURING A WAR.

for the SIXTH time:

i agree that extrajudicial killings is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

will you or will you not argue against the above bolded statement?


So you are trying to say this isn't a war again? I thought you said the AUMF was legal even though you didn't agree with it?

This is frustrating because you say something one moment and then go back the other way later.

Once again I do disagree with your statement because I don't think it is troubling and you have not shown me why it is.I have already said this to you.

You said we had "executed" 4 American non-combatants which IS troubling and which turned out to be NOT TRUE.

The reality of what you said was we executed 1 American who was working with the enemy and planning operations against the US and we could not use normal law enforcement of the region to get.

I do not find that troubling at all. And so far you have been unable to say why it is troubling except for talking about issues that have nothing to do with that issue.
 
2013-05-31 05:19:48 PM  

Corvus: That's wrong. Your impression on how wars are fought is very naive. We bomb the shiat out of places to get at military targets the idea we don't if someone is not actively holding a gun to you is bullshiat.


ok, fair enough. i'm being naive. i was talking about walkng up to a "quartermaster" and shooting him in the head. if it's ok to do that, then i'm wrong.

why won't you answer my question:

for the SEVENTH time:

i agree that extrajudicial killings is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

will you or will you not argue against the above bolded statement?
 
2013-05-31 05:20:54 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: NEITHER DID THE OTHER 3 GUYS YOU LISTED!!!!

YES THEY DID

THEY DIED AS THE RESULT OF A DIRECT ASSASSINATION ORDER FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA

pat tillman did not die as the result of a direct assassination order from president bush. he died in a friendly fire incident DURING A WAR.

for the SIXTH time:

i agree that extrajudicial killings is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

will you or will you not argue against the above bolded statement?


Yes. like I have said already. It is NOT troubling when it is used to get people who are siding with the enemy during times of war and planning attacks against the US. Which is what Obama has done.

I have said this 3 or 4 times already and you keep putting your fingers in your ears.
 
2013-05-31 05:22:45 PM  

Corvus: This is frustrating because you say something one moment and then go back the other way later.


BULLSH*T the only things i changed made ZERO bearing on my statement, which you refuse to address. 

Corvus: You said we had "executed" 4 American non-combatants which IS troubling and which turned out to be NOT TRUE.


i changed "executed" to killed about two hours and twenty posts ago. but if you want to hang onto this as a semantic victory, congratulations.
 
2013-05-31 05:23:12 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: That's wrong. Your impression on how wars are fought is very naive. We bomb the shiat out of places to get at military targets the idea we don't if someone is not actively holding a gun to you is bullshiat.

ok, fair enough. i'm being naive. i was talking about walkng up to a "quartermaster" and shooting him in the head. if it's ok to do that, then i'm wrong.

why won't you answer my question:

for the SEVENTH time:

i agree that extrajudicial killings is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

will you or will you not argue against the above bolded statement?


Corvus: Sorry why are the troubling again? You haven't explained except for bringing you points that have been misleading at best.


Corvus: Once again I do disagree with your statement because I don't think it is troubling and you have not shown me why it is.I have already said this to you.


Corvus: Yes. like I have said already. It is NOT troubling when it is used to get people who are siding with the enemy during times of war and planning attacks against the US. Which is what Obama has done.

I have said this 3 or 4 times already and you keep putting your fingers in your ears.


I have told you mean times already. And you keep ignoring it.
 
2013-05-31 05:24:26 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: This is frustrating because you say something one moment and then go back the other way later.

BULLSH*T the only things i changed made ZERO bearing on my statement, which you refuse to address. 

Corvus: You said we had "executed" 4 American non-combatants which IS troubling and which turned out to be NOT TRUE.

i changed "executed" to killed about two hours and twenty posts ago. but if you want to hang onto this as a semantic victory, congratulations.


So then Tillman counts too then? Which is it?
 
2013-05-31 05:24:52 PM  
Both of you should stop now and start drinking.
Circular....study it out.
 
2013-05-31 05:25:06 PM  

Corvus: It is NOT troubling when it is used to get people who are siding with the enemy during times of war and planning attacks against the US.


finally. thank you.

i believe that you are wrong - primarily because "during times of war" in an unending war is literally forever, giving the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time.

but thank you for finally addressing the statement.
 
2013-05-31 05:27:30 PM  

Corvus: So then Tillman counts too then? Which is it?


so you think pat tillman, a uniformed soldier dying in a friendly fire incident during a battle in a theater of war is the SAME as an american dying in a country with which we are NOT at war as collateral damage from an assassination order from the president?

holy fark.
 
2013-05-31 05:28:43 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: It is NOT troubling when it is used to get people who are siding with the enemy during times of war and planning attacks against the US.

finally. thank you.

i believe that you are wrong - primarily because "during times of war" in an unending war is literally forever, giving the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time.

but thank you for finally addressing the statement.


Finally I said it 4 times and you were ignoring it!!

Hey, I never said that was fine. I said that has nothing to do with Obama.

What has Obama done? What's the scandal or "legitimate controversy" he made?

Once again OBAMA DID NOT PASS THE AUMF LIKE YOU KEEP PRETENDING.
 
2013-05-31 05:30:22 PM  

Corvus: I said that has nothing to do with Obama.


he ordered it. i'd say that it has a bit to do with him.

Corvus: OBAMA DID NOT PASS THE AUMF LIKE YOU KEEP PRETENDING.


i have never once suggested he did. in fact, i have stated several times that he has recently come out against it. but keep putting words in my mouth; it's so much easier than arguing the actual point.
 
2013-05-31 05:31:21 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So then Tillman counts too then? Which is it?

so you think pat tillman, a uniformed soldier dying in a friendly fire incident during a battle in a theater of war is the SAME as an american dying in a country with which we are NOT at war as collateral damage from an assassination order from the president?

holy fark.


Nope. I don't but he was an American killed without a trail accidentally just like those you are counting as Obama "extrajudicial killings" in your statements.

Are you saying people fighting for the enemy have more rights than people fighting on the side of the US? We can kill people in the US military accidentally but those fighting for the enemy accidentally killing is not ok? That once again makes no farking sense.
 
2013-05-31 05:33:29 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: I said that has nothing to do with Obama.

he ordered it. i'd say that it has a bit to do with him.


He didn't order their deaths. You really don't understand the diffence?

Corvus: OBAMA DID NOT PASS THE AUMF LIKE YOU KEEP PRETENDING.

i have never once suggested he did. in fact, i have stated several times that he has recently come out against it. but keep putting words in my mouth; it's so much easier than arguing the actual point.


So then how are you justifying the powers the the AUMF gives Obama is Obama's fault? His "Scandal" or "controversy"? How does it make him responsible for it then?
 
2013-05-31 05:33:44 PM  

Corvus: Nope. I don't but he was an American killed without a trail accidentally just like those you are counting as Obama "extrajudicial killings" in your statements.


the only similarity is the accidental nature of their deaths. tillman was a uniformed soldier on an actual battlefield in an actual war. to equate that with some noncombatant american citizen (remember - not targeted) abroad dying as the result of the collateral damage from an assassination order from the president is patently ridiculous.
 
2013-05-31 05:35:32 PM  

Corvus: He didn't order their deaths. You really don't understand the diffence?


he ordered the assassination that caused their deaths. this is different than a uniformed soldier dying on the field of battle.

Corvus: So then how are you justifying the powers the the AUMF gives Obama is Obama's fault? His "Scandal" or "controversy"? How does it make him responsible for it then?


so you admit putting words in my mouth. that's big of you.
 
2013-05-31 05:36:26 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: OBAMA DID NOT PASS THE AUMF LIKE YOU KEEP PRETENDING.

i have never once suggested he did. in fact, i have stated several times that he has recently come out against it. but keep putting words in my mouth; it's so much easier than arguing the actual point.


You did right here:

FlashHarry: Corvus: It is NOT troubling when it is used to get people who are siding with the enemy during times of war and planning attacks against the US.

finally. thank you.

i believe that you are wrong - primarily because "during times of war" in an unending war is literally forever, giving the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time.

but thank you for finally addressing the statement.



You here are describing the AUMF and using it say the Obama's actions are wrong. You are saying the AUMF makes Obama wrong. If not take back that statement because you are now saying the AUMF has nothing to do with Obama's actions.
 
2013-05-31 05:37:17 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Nope. I don't but he was an American killed without a trail accidentally just like those you are counting as Obama "extrajudicial killings" in your statements.

the only similarity is the accidental nature of their deaths. tillman was a uniformed soldier on an actual battlefield in an actual war. to equate that with some noncombatant american citizen (remember - not targeted) abroad dying as the result of the collateral damage from an assassination order from the president is patently ridiculous.


Was Tillmane a extrajudicial killing? yes or no?
 
2013-05-31 05:38:47 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: He didn't order their deaths. You really don't understand the diffence?

he ordered the assassination that caused their deaths. this is different than a uniformed soldier dying on the field of battle.

Corvus: So then how are you justifying the powers the the AUMF gives Obama is Obama's fault? His "Scandal" or "controversy"? How does it make him responsible for it then?

so you admit putting words in my mouth. that's big of you.


No you did it here:

FlashHarry: Corvus: It is NOT troubling when it is used to get people who are siding with the enemy during times of war and planning attacks against the US.

finally. thank you.

i believe that you are wrong -

primarily because "during times of war" in an unending war is literally forever, giving the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time.

but thank you for finally addressing the statement.

I was talking about Obama's actions, you described the AUMF. The bolded is you describing the AUMF. I was talking about Obama's actions.
 
2013-05-31 05:40:38 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.



Please provide us with more predictions about the Blackhawks.
 
2013-05-31 05:40:38 PM  

Corvus: You here are describing the AUMF and using it say the Obama's actions are wrong. You are saying the AUMF makes Obama wrong. If not take back that statement because you are now saying the AUMF has nothing to do with Obama's actions.


wow. ok, i'll say it again, and i'll use small words: i believe that the AUMF is wrong. i believe that obama's ordering of extrajudicial killings under AUMF may also be wrong.

but i never said that "obama passed AUMF" as you said i did. obviously it was passed in the wake of 9/11, many years before obama took office. and even barring that temporal technicality, saying "obama passed AUMF" suggests that it was his idea, which it was not.
 
2013-05-31 05:42:35 PM  

Corvus: Was Tillmane a extrajudicial killing? yes or no?


no. he was a uniformed soldier on the field of battle in a theater of war.

this is in no way the same thing as being an american civilian in a country with whom we are not at war.
 
2013-05-31 05:46:04 PM  

FlashHarry: wow. ok, i'll say it again, and i'll use small words: i believe that the AUMF is wrong. i believe that obama's ordering of extrajudicial killings under AUMF may also be wrong.


Ok then one again: Which specific killings that Obama did were wrong and why? (and don't describe the AUMF like you did before)
 
2013-05-31 05:48:19 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Was Tillmane a extrajudicial killing? yes or no?

no. he was a uniformed soldier on the field of battle in a theater of war.

this is in no way the same thing as being an american civilian in a country with whom we are not at war.


Was he an extrajudicial killing?

Neither is someone who is accidentally killed and someone targeted on purpose. That is very different too but you seem to enjoy blurring those lines?

Why do you think a US uniformed Soldiers should have MORE rights than Americans working with the enemy and planning attacks against the US?
 
2013-05-31 05:49:25 PM  

Corvus: Which specific killings that Obama did were wrong and why? (and don't describe the AUMF like you did before)


what do you mean, "like i did before?" i believe the AUMF is wrong. and i believe that obama's using it to kill americans without trial may also be wrong. the two are inextricably linked.
 
2013-05-31 05:49:27 PM  

Corvus: Why do you think a US uniformed Soldiers should have MORE rights than Americans working with the enemy and planning attacks against the US?


Sorry I meant:
 

Why do you think a US uniformed Soldiers should have LESS rights than Americans working with the enemy and planning attacks against the US?

You are saying it's ok to accidentally kill US soldiers but not those fighting against us. How does that make any farking sense?
 
2013-05-31 05:51:42 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Which specific killings that Obama did were wrong and why? (and don't describe the AUMF like you did before)

what do you mean, "like i did before?" i believe the AUMF is wrong. and i believe that obama's using it to kill americans without trial may also be wrong. the two are inextricably linked.


I've showed you twice already.

Are you trolling or really this obtuse?

FlashHarry: i believe that you are wrong - primarily because "during times of war" in an unending war is literally forever, giving the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time.


What are you describing here? Do you think Obama "gave the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time. " or was that the AUMF?
 
2013-05-31 05:52:39 PM  
The Corvus and FlashHarry show will return after these messages.
 
2013-05-31 05:52:48 PM  

Corvus: You are saying it's ok to accidentally kill US soldiers but not those fighting against us. How does that make any farking sense?


jesus christ. i'm not saying that, and you farking well know it. talk about being disingenuous.

i'm saying that there is an inherent difference between being an american civilian abroad and being a uniformed american soldier on the field of battle in the theater of war.
 
2013-05-31 05:53:29 PM  
I'm sure O'Reilly will start the show tonight with a correction.


not
 
2013-05-31 05:53:48 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Which specific killings that Obama did were wrong and why? (and don't describe the AUMF like you did before)

what do you mean, "like i did before?" i believe the AUMF is wrong. and i believe that obama's using it to kill americans without trial may also be wrong. the two are inextricably linked.


So now we are back to this statement? So George Washington and Lincoln were wrong to send troops against Americans without trials?

Or are you going to go once again and pretend what you said isn't actually what you said?
 
2013-05-31 05:55:19 PM  

Corvus: What are you describing here? Do you think Obama "gave the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time. " or was that the AUMF?


the AUMF, which was passed in 2001, gave the president the power, and obama, as the president, used the power. i believe both are wrong - the passing of the AUMF and the president's using it to kill americans without trial. are you really this dim? i've said this over and over again. i don't know how i can be more plain.
 
2013-05-31 05:56:07 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: You are saying it's ok to accidentally kill US soldiers but not those fighting against us. How does that make any farking sense?

jesus christ. i'm not saying that, and you farking well know it. talk about being disingenuous.

i'm saying that there is an inherent difference between being an american civilian abroad and being a uniformed american soldier on the field of battle in the theater of war.


Then why can't we count Tillman again? Wasn't his rights taken away by also being an "extrajudicial killing"?

Why are you pretending it was unfair to kill those working with the enemy accidental without trial but not for US soldiers accidentally killed without trial?
 
2013-05-31 05:58:00 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: What are you describing here? Do you think Obama "gave the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time. " or was that the AUMF?

the AUMF, which was passed in 2001, gave the president the power, and obama, as the president, used the power. i believe both are wrong - the passing of the AUMF and the president's using it to kill americans without trial. are you really this dim? i've said this over and over again. i don't know how i can be more plain.


Then why did you describe the AUMF (Not Obama's actions) for saying Obama is wrong?

I think your trolling now. No one can be this dense.

Once again. What of Obama's actions is wrong. Give me a SPECIFIC not a generalization and don't use the AUMF description like you have.
 
2013-05-31 05:58:05 PM  
zOMG Shulman only met with B. Hussein Osama ELEVEN times!!1!1!ELEVENTYONE!  How out of touch can that dagburn Dimmycrat varmint get?
 
2013-05-31 05:58:20 PM  

Corvus: So George Washington and Lincoln were wrong to send troops against Americans without trials?


i cannot speak to the whiskey rebellion as i do not know enough about it.

but in the case of the civil war, the southern states seceded from the union. at that point, they became, by their own secession an enemy country with its own uniformed army that was making war against the united states.

to equate that with an anti-american cleric in yemen or wherever is patently asinine.
 
2013-05-31 05:58:56 PM  

FlashHarry: the AUMF, which was passed in 2001, gave the president the power, and obama, as the president, used the power. i believe both are wrong - the passing of the AUMF and the president's using it to kill americans without trial. are you really this dim? i've said this over and over again. i don't know how i can be more plain.


Was Lincoln and Geroge Washington also wrong to send troops against US citizens with no trial?
 
Displayed 50 of 298 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report