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 298
    More: Followup, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, President Obama, White House, IRS, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Douglas Shulman, situation room, Easter Egg Roll  
•       •       •

2382 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 May 2013 at 1:07 PM (2 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 06:00:30 PM  

FlashHarry: 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.


WRONG. We didn't consider them a new country if we did the emancipation proclamation would have been bullshiat.

Serious like I said before you need to learn more about history and war. You have a very naive belief about it.
 
2013-05-31 06:00:51 PM  

Corvus: What of Obama's actions is wrong. Give me a SPECIFIC not a generalization and don't use the AUMF description like you have.


ORDERING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WITHOUT TRIAL.

you cannot be that stupid.
 
2013-05-31 06:01:08 PM  

FlashHarry: to equate that with an anti-american cleric in yemen or wherever is patently asinine.


So people's beliefs give people different sets of rights as US citzens?
 
2013-05-31 06:02:15 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: What of Obama's actions is wrong. Give me a SPECIFIC not a generalization and don't use the AUMF description like you have.

ORDERING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WITHOUT TRIAL.

you cannot be that stupid.


You said before they were not "Executions". Now you are back to this BS?

Who tell me specifically who and why it was wrong.
 
2013-05-31 06:02:50 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: What of Obama's actions is wrong. Give me a SPECIFIC not a generalization and don't use the AUMF description like you have.

ORDERING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WITHOUT TRIAL.

you cannot be that stupid.


Funny before you said there were not "executions" now your back to this bullshiat.
 
2013-05-31 06:03:08 PM  

Corvus: WRONG. We didn't consider them a new country if we did the emancipation proclamation would have been bullshiat.


they considered themselves a new country. however, conceding that we didn't, they were still an organized, uniformed force that took up arms against the united states with the goal of secession.

the fundamental difference is, terrorism isn't the same thing as war.
 
2013-05-31 06:04:18 PM  

Corvus: You said before they were not "Executions". Now you are back to this BS?


jesus farking CHRIST: it was the ordering of the execution that caused the other three NON-TARGETED americans to die.

i was talking about the radical cleric, WHO WAS EXECUTED WITHOUT TRIAL.
 
2013-05-31 06:05:10 PM  

Corvus: Funny before you said there were not "executions" now your back to this bullshiat.


funny how i said "AN american citizen." now you're back to your bullshiat.
 
2013-05-31 06:06:26 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: WRONG. We didn't consider them a new country if we did the emancipation proclamation would have been bullshiat.

they considered themselves a new country. however, conceding that we didn't, they were still an organized, uniformed force that took up arms against the united states with the goal of secession.

the fundamental difference is, terrorism isn't the same thing as war.


Holy shiat dude. We are officially at war. You even admitted to this earlier.

So you are once again pretending the AUMF does not put us at war?
 
2013-05-31 06:07:17 PM  
i think the discrepancy here is, i believe that terrorism is a criminal act, not an act of war, because it is carried out, typically, by a non-state entity. this is why i believe that those accused of terrorism deserve due process and why pat tillman's death, though tragic, isn't the same as the death of an american abroad in a country with which we are not at war.
 
2013-05-31 06:07:38 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: You said before they were not "Executions". Now you are back to this BS?

jesus farking CHRIST: it was the ordering of the execution that caused the other three NON-TARGETED americans to die.

i was talking about the radical cleric, WHO WAS EXECUTED WITHOUT TRIAL.


OK then so the other 3 no longer count then? I am trying to keep track. Or your definitions just magically change when they become convenient for you?
 
2013-05-31 06:08:19 PM  

Corvus: We are officially at war. You even admitted to this earlier.

So you are once again pretending the AUMF does not put us at war?


HOLY F*CK. I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT, WHILE LEGAL, I BELIEVE THE AUMF TO BE WRONG.

*headdesk*
 
2013-05-31 06:10:54 PM  

Corvus: OK then so the other 3 no longer count then? I am trying to keep track. Or your definitions just magically change when they become convenient for you?


you're shifting and slithering so much, it's hard to keep track. you asked me what obama did that was wrong, and i answered you. you asked me how the three who died as collateral damage were different from pat tillman's death and i answered you. i have answered you over and over and over and over again, yet you fail to understand or don't want to.
 
2013-05-31 06:12:29 PM  

FlashHarry: i think the discrepancy here is, i believe that terrorism is a criminal act, not an act of war, because it is carried out, typically, by a non-state entity. this is why i believe that those accused of terrorism deserve due process and why pat tillman's death, though tragic, isn't the same as the death of an american abroad in a country with which we are not at war.


Sure, now what does this have to do with Obamas actions? NOTHING

Once again you are saying you don't like the AUMF making us fight Terrorism as a WAR. But that has NOTHING to do with Obama. It is a war. You might not like that. I might not like that. Obama might not like that. But that's what it is.

That IS the reality!!! You don't farking get that. I and Obama understand that's the reality and we move on from there. So to us it's "we need to fight this war". To you it's "I don't want this to be a war so I am going to complain about those who acknowledge it as war and treat it like one". You instead are blaming those accepting the reality of the situation.

Serious take a deep breath and read what I said. It's why you keep conflating the two things. They are two separate things.
 
2013-05-31 06:14:06 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: We are officially at war. You even admitted to this earlier.

So you are once again pretending the AUMF does not put us at war?

HOLY F*CK. I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT, WHILE LEGAL, I BELIEVE THE AUMF TO BE WRONG.

*headdesk*


Then why do you keep saying we are not at war? You keep making that distinction in your comments and it's wrong.
 
2013-05-31 06:15:11 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: OK then so the other 3 no longer count then? I am trying to keep track. Or your definitions just magically change when they become convenient for you?

you're shifting and slithering so much, it's hard to keep track. you asked me what obama did that was wrong, and i answered you. you asked me how the three who died as collateral damage were different from pat tillman's death and i answered you. i have answered you over and over and over and over again, yet you fail to understand or don't want to.


I don't think I did. I asked if Tillman was an "extrajudicial killing" and you have refused to answer.
 
2013-05-31 06:17:01 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: You said before they were not "Executions". Now you are back to this BS?

jesus farking CHRIST: it was the ordering of the execution that caused the other three NON-TARGETED americans to die.

i was talking about the radical cleric, WHO WAS EXECUTED WITHOUT TRIAL.


My real problem to that is that the US does not do trials in absentia, and being in a country which doesn't have control within its own borders means that no one can arrest him for us. This means that any American joining al qaeda and working against the US in a country that doesn't have control within its own borders would be untouchable. Actually the entire cell he'd be with would be untouchable, because we'd have a high risk of killing him by attacking said cell.


Honestly on this my view is basically that if I wouldn't have a problem with us going after him if he wasn't a US citizen, then I am not sure why accident of birth should change the entire military policy of the US. Of course if he were in our custody, he should get a trial, no questions asked. On the other hand, I believe that anyone we have in our custody should get a trial, but I understand a military tribunal if they were captured in combat.
 
2013-05-31 06:17:27 PM  

Corvus: Serious take a deep breath and read what I said. It's why you keep conflating the two things. They are two separate things.


they ARE two separate things, and they are both, i believe wrong:

• the AUMF is inherently wrong, for reasons i've stated above, though legal
• obama's use of the AUMF to justify the extrajudicial execution of the cleric (and the collateral killing of three other americans) is also wrong, though legal

but my ORIGINAL point was, unlike the IRS, the AP and benghazi "scandals," this is a legitimate controversy involving obama personally and, as such, deserves discussion. the other issues mentioned run the gamut from witch hunt (benghazi) to worrisome (AP/IRS), but they don't involve obama.
 
2013-05-31 06:19:57 PM  
this is in no way the same thing as being an american civilian in a country with whom we are not at war.

Corvus: I asked if Tillman was an "extrajudicial killing" and you have refused to answer.


if by "refused to answer," you mean, "answering you directly and unequivocally":

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.

 
2013-05-31 06:20:58 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: OK then so the other 3 no longer count then? I am trying to keep track. Or your definitions just magically change when they become convenient for you?

you're shifting and slithering so much, it's hard to keep track. you asked me what obama did that was wrong, and i answered you. you asked me how the three who died as collateral damage were different from pat tillman's death and i answered you. i have answered you over and over and over and over again, yet you fail to understand or don't want to.


I don't understand how it's hard for you to keep track what you are saying or what you believe.

I asked you what you were upset about that Obama did. You mentioned 4 "executions"
Then when I had you tell me more you admitted 3 were not executions but "killings" so then you said you meant "killings" not "executions"
So then you started describing what you are really upset about is the authorization of force given to the president
I pointed out this is AUMF and has nothing to do with Obama
Then you threw a fit saying you never said Obama is responsible for the AUMF even though you used it to justify blame to Obama
So since we were getting of topic I asked once again for what OBAMA is at fault for.
You know said "Execution" again. So since this is different then your "killing" terminology you used earlier I asked for clarification on if we are not counting the 3 who were killed and not executed.
 
2013-05-31 06:21:11 PM  

Corvus: Then why do you keep saying we are not at war? You keep making that distinction in your comments and it's wrong.


that is why i believe the AUMF to be wrong. terror is a tactic. you cannot be at war with a tactic. i have said this over and over again, but you refuse to listen.
 
2013-05-31 06:23:12 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Serious take a deep breath and read what I said. It's why you keep conflating the two things. They are two separate things.

they ARE two separate things, and they are both, i believe wrong:

• the AUMF is inherently wrong, for reasons i've stated above, though legal
obama's use of the AUMF to justify the extrajudicial execution of the cleric (and the collateral killing of three other americans) is also wrong, though legal

but my ORIGINAL point was, unlike the IRS, the AP and benghazi "scandals," this is a legitimate controversy involving obama personally and, as such, deserves discussion. the other issues mentioned run the gamut from witch hunt (benghazi) to worrisome (AP/IRS), but they don't involve obama.


Why is killing the cleric wrong? You still have not given a coherent answer for that.

You say it's because it's an "extrajudicial killing" but when I mention other extrajudicial killings you say those don't count.

Can you please clarify why you think the killing was "wrong"? Because you have never given a reason that is consistent.
 
2013-05-31 06:24:30 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Then why do you keep saying we are not at war? You keep making that distinction in your comments and it's wrong.

that is why i believe the AUMF to be wrong. terror is a tactic. you cannot be at war with a tactic. i have said this over and over again, but you refuse to listen.


There is a difference between saying you do not agree with something and saying something is not legal.

You can't figure that out? I don't like the AUMF but I realize it's the law. I explained the up above.
 
2013-05-31 06:25:58 PM  

Corvus: I asked you what you were upset about that Obama did. You mentioned 4 "executions"
Then when I had you tell me more you admitted 3 were not executions but "killings" so then you said you meant "killings" not "executions"
So then you started describing what you are really upset about is the authorization of force given to the president
I pointed out this is AUMF and has nothing to do with Obama
Then you threw a fit saying you never said Obama is responsible for the AUMF even though you used it to justify blame to Obama
So since we were getting of topic I asked once again for what OBAMA is at fault for.
You know said "Execution" again. So since this is different then your "killing" terminology you used earlier I asked for clarification on if we are not counting the 3 who were killed and not executed.


if you're going to be this blatantly dishonest, there's no point in arguing with you.

but to answer all your points:

• i conceded that the term "execution" was incorrect as it relates to the three americans who died collaterally, which is why i amended it to "killing"
• i have said multiple times that i believe that the AUMF itself is wrong AND obama's use of it is wrong - though both are legal. these are two different things, only one of which is "obama's fault."
• i said "execution" again, because, as was made clear by my use of the singular article "A," i was referring to the death of the cleric, which was an extrajudicial targeted killing AKA "EXECUTION"
 
2013-05-31 06:26:06 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Then why do you keep saying we are not at war? You keep making that distinction in your comments and it's wrong.

that is why i believe the AUMF to be wrong. terror is a tactic. you cannot be at war with a tactic. i have said this over and over again, but you refuse to listen.


By the way you know the AUMF doesn't really put us at war against "terrorism" it puts us at war with those who caused 9/11 and those working with them and protecting them.

Like I said you really need to learn more about what you are talking about you have been very wrong on many points you have made in this thread.
 
2013-05-31 06:27:11 PM  

Corvus: Why is killing the cleric wrong? You still have not given a coherent answer for that.


i have said it multiple times: it was wrong because it was extrajudicial. are you blind?
 
2013-05-31 06:28:13 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: I asked you what you were upset about that Obama did. You mentioned 4 "executions"
Then when I had you tell me more you admitted 3 were not executions but "killings" so then you said you meant "killings" not "executions"
So then you started describing what you are really upset about is the authorization of force given to the president
I pointed out this is AUMF and has nothing to do with Obama
Then you threw a fit saying you never said Obama is responsible for the AUMF even though you used it to justify blame to Obama
So since we were getting of topic I asked once again for what OBAMA is at fault for.
You know said "Execution" again. So since this is different then your "killing" terminology you used earlier I asked for clarification on if we are not counting the 3 who were killed and not executed.

if you're going to be this blatantly dishonest, there's no point in arguing with you.

but to answer all your points:

• i conceded that the term "execution" was incorrect as it relates to the three americans who died collaterally, which is why i amended it to "killing"
• i have said multiple times that i believe that the AUMF itself is wrong AND obama's use of it is wrong - though both are legal. these are two different things, only one of which is "obama's fault."
• i said "execution" again, because, as was made clear by my use of the singular article "A," i was referring to the death of the cleric, which was an extrajudicial targeted killing AKA "EXECUTION"


So you believe in times of war no American can be killed without a trial? Even if he is working with the enemy and has taken up arms against the enemy?
 
2013-05-31 06:29:07 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Why is killing the cleric wrong? You still have not given a coherent answer for that.

i have said it multiple times: it was wrong because it was extrajudicial. are you blind?


So then Tillmans death was also wrong because it was an extrajudicial killing?

And so where the deaths in the civil war?
 
2013-05-31 06:30:06 PM  

Corvus: By the way you know the AUMF doesn't really put us at war against "terrorism" it puts us at war with those who caused 9/11 and those working with them and protecting them.


That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

this clause can be construed to mean anyone beyond the 9/11-connected actors.
 
2013-05-31 06:30:17 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Why is killing the cleric wrong? You still have not given a coherent answer for that.

i have said it multiple times: it was wrong because it was extrajudicial. are you blind?


I know you have given an answer but it was one you later contradicted yourself about.

You later said other "extrajudicial killings" were not the same like Tilmans. So that can't be it.
 
2013-05-31 06:30:56 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: By the way you know the AUMF doesn't really put us at war against "terrorism" it puts us at war with those who caused 9/11 and those working with them and protecting them.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

this clause can be construed to mean anyone beyond the 9/11-connected actors.


Ok. That's correct.
 
2013-05-31 06:31:11 PM  

Corvus: So you believe in times of war no American can be killed without a trial? Even if he is working with the enemy and has taken up arms against the enemy?


I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE LEGITIMATELY AT WAR, DESPITE WHAT THE AUMF SAYS.

are you farking BLIND?
 
2013-05-31 06:32:22 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Why is killing the cleric wrong? You still have not given a coherent answer for that.

i have said it multiple times: it was wrong because it was extrajudicial. are you blind?


You've said this and then said many other extrajudicial killings during war do not count like Tilman or the civil war... basically any others except for Obama's.
 
2013-05-31 06:34:20 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So you believe in times of war no American can be killed without a trial? Even if he is working with the enemy and has taken up arms against the enemy?

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE LEGITIMATELY AT WAR, DESPITE WHAT THE AUMF SAYS.

are you farking BLIND?


Are we legally at war or not?

Are you seriously saying Obama should have just pulled back all the troops back home because you think the war is not legitimate?

Why are you just arguing about this then? Why not complain about us having troops in Afghanistan too?

Sorry the reality is we are at war. You need to come to grips with reality.
 
2013-05-31 06:35:17 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So you believe in times of war no American can be killed without a trial? Even if he is working with the enemy and has taken up arms against the enemy?

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE LEGITIMATELY AT WAR, DESPITE WHAT THE AUMF SAYS.

are you farking BLIND?


Serous are you like 13?
 
2013-05-31 06:37:38 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So you believe in times of war no American can be killed without a trial? Even if he is working with the enemy and has taken up arms against the enemy?

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE LEGITIMATELY AT WAR, DESPITE WHAT THE AUMF SAYS.

are you farking BLIND?


Are you:

Corvus: FlashHarry: i think the discrepancy here is, i believe that terrorism is a criminal act, not an act of war, because it is carried out, typically, by a non-state entity. this is why i believe that those accused of terrorism deserve due process and why pat tillman's death, though tragic, isn't the same as the death of an american abroad in a country with which we are not at war.

Sure, now what does this have to do with Obamas actions? NOTHING

Once again you are saying you don't like the AUMF making us fight Terrorism as a WAR. But that has NOTHING to do with Obama. It is a war. You might not like that. I might not like that. Obama might not like that. But that's what it is.

That IS the reality!!! You don't farking get that. I and Obama understand that's the reality and we move on from there. So to us it's "we need to fight this war". To you it's "I don't want this to be a war so I am going to complain about those who acknowledge it as war and treat it like one". You instead are blaming those accepting the reality of the situation.

Serious take a deep breath and read what I said. It's why you keep conflating the two things. They are two separate things.


I think I am over. Obviously you are just having a fit that we are at war (not saying I agree with it or like it) and because others don't play along in your delusional world you are throwing a fit and blaming them because they are accepting the reality of it.

It's impossible to discuss the with you because you are incapable of accepting the reality of the current situation.
 
2013-05-31 07:03:51 PM  

Corvus: I think I am over. Obviously you are just having a fit that we are at war (not saying I agree with it or like it) and because others don't play along in your delusional world you are throwing a fit and blaming them because they are accepting the reality of it.

It's impossible to discuss the with you because you are incapable of accepting the reality of the current situation.


one last time:

• i believe that we are legally at war, according to the AUMF
• i believe this to be wrong (not illegal), for reasons i've stated above, ad nauseam
• i believe that obama was wrong to order the execution of an (singular) american citizen and through his actions cause the deaths (plural) of three more american citizens
• i believe that, while wrong, his actions were legal
• i believe that, counter to the AUMF, terrorism is a criminal activity, not a military one
• for this reason, i believe that the deaths of pat tillman and the deaths of the three unnamed americans mentioned above are not in the same category

you obviously disagree with me on all these points.

that proves my initial point, that this is a subject that is a bona fide controversy (i originally said scandal, which was wrong) as it relates to the president and his powers.

so far, i have answered your every question honestly, dozens of times over. i have admitted when i was wrong. you have put words in my mouth and ignored my statements. there is no point in arguing with you.

but you win. congratulations.
 
2013-05-31 07:16:29 PM  
Combine this with the doctored Benghazi emails, and you have an idea why all of these "scandals" have been non-starters from the beginning. Of course the Right tries to play it like the media is in Obama's pocket, when in reality it's just that they are in this plane of reality...
 
2013-05-31 07:26:26 PM  
see what happens when they cancel Intervention?
 
2013-05-31 08:53:28 PM  

FlashHarry: so far, i have answered your every question honestly, dozens of times over. i have admitted when i was wrong.


Really where did you admit you were wrong? You never did.

FlashHarry: so far, i have answered your every question honestly, dozens of times over.


That's BS you never answered most of my questions. Like you have never answered if Tillmans death was a "extra-judiciary killing" (according to your definition which is one that can happen by accident) which I have asked you many times instead you say he is a US soldier which has nothing to do with the question.

And I never said I supported that a BS statement you keep pretending I am arguing I am just saying it is the law unlike you who keeps pretending it doesn't exist.

Changing the subject is not "answering the question".
 
2013-05-31 09:48:41 PM  

Corvus: Really where did you admit you were wrong? You never did.


here

FlashHarry: it is less of a scandal and more of a controversy. i will concede you this point of semantics.


and here:

FlashHarry: i amend my previous statements. please replace "executed" with "killed by the US government without due process."


Corvus: That's BS you never answered most of my questions. Like you have never answered if Tillmans death was a "extra-judiciary killing" (according to your definition which is one that can happen by accident) which I have asked you many times instead you say he is a US soldier which has nothing to do with the question.


i did, right here:

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.


his being a soldier has everything to do with the question, which i have explained countless times, but you refuse to listen.

Corvus: I am just saying it is the law unlike you who keeps pretending it doesn't exist.


i have never pretended it didn't exist. i have acknowledged it over and over and over again. you refuse to listen. i merely said i think it's wrong.

please point out where i pretended it doesn't exist. go ahead; i'll wait.
 
2013-05-31 11:44:45 PM  
You two need to either get a room or take out mutual restraining orders.
 
2013-06-01 02:24:21 AM  
If I were President, I wouldn't only keep close contact with my cabinet members, but all of the direct underlings of the cabinet members as well and maybe some of their direct underlings, depending on the department.  There are things you'll tell your boss's boss, but not your boss, after all.
 
2013-06-01 04:22:00 AM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Really where did you admit you were wrong? You never did.

here

FlashHarry: it is less of a scandal and more of a controversy. i will concede you this point of semantics.

and here:

FlashHarry: i amend my previous statements. please replace "executed" with "killed by the US government without due process."

Corvus: That's BS you never answered most of my questions. Like you have never answered if Tillmans death was a "extra-judiciary killing" (according to your definition which is one that can happen by accident) which I have asked you many times instead you say he is a US soldier which has nothing to do with the question.

i did, right here:

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.

his being a soldier has everything to do with the question, which i have explained countless times, but you refuse to listen.

Corvus: I am just saying it is the law unlike you who keeps pretending it doesn't exist.

i have never pretended it didn't exist. i have acknowledged it over and over and over again. you refuse to listen. i merely said i think it's wrong.

please point out where i pretended it doesn't exist. go ahead; i'll wait.


Sorry that's not admitting your wrong. You later said it was "Executed" again so saying you admitted you were wrong is BS.

If it is tell me what you were wrong about.

So what court found Tillman guilty of what crime exactly?

So you believe the US government can kill US uniformed soldier on the battlefield with no trial? They can kill them as often as the want with no trial?
 
2013-06-01 04:23:05 AM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: I am just saying it is the law unlike you who keeps pretending it doesn't exist.

i have never pretended it didn't exist. i have acknowledged it over and over and over again. you refuse to listen. i merely said i think it's wrong.

please point out where i pretended it doesn't exist. go ahead; i'll wait.


Right here:

FlashHarry: Corvus: So you believe in times of war no American can be killed without a trial? Even if he is working with the enemy and has taken up arms against the enemy?

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE LEGITIMATELY AT WAR, DESPITE WHAT THE AUMF SAYS.

are you farking BLIND?

 
2013-06-01 04:28:16 AM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: I am just saying it is the law unlike you who keeps pretending it doesn't exist.

i have never pretended it didn't exist. i have acknowledged it over and over and over again. you refuse to listen. i merely said i think it's wrong.

please point out where i pretended it doesn't exist. go ahead; i'll wait.


You have pretended it doesn't count because you don't like it. Which for all intents and purposes is the same thing.
 
2013-06-01 09:23:32 AM  

Corvus: You have pretended it doesn't count because you don't like it. Which for all intents and purposes is the same thing.


considering something wrong isn't pretending it doesn't exist. even a child understands this.

Corvus: You later said it was "Executed" again so saying you admitted you were wrong is BS.


why do you feel you have to lie like that? it undermines your point and makes you look weak.

i very clearly stated that when i used the word 'executed' again, it was because i was referring to the cleric, who was indeed executed, and NOT the three americans who were killed inadvertently.

since you are a serial liar and have no interest in actual discussion, i don't believe that i'll continue this conversation, as it is quite clear at this point that i've been mega-trolled. so, congratulations, you got me. you win.
 
2013-06-01 09:27:04 AM  

Corvus: So you believe the US government can kill US uniformed soldier on the battlefield with no trial?


once again you lie and put words into my mouth. once again, this makes you look like a troll.

pat tillman was a uniformed soldier who died in a friendly fire incident on an active battlefield in a war. nowhere did i say this was ok. i merely said that it was different than a noncombatant american abroad getting blown up accidentally by a predator strike in a country with which we are not at war.

if you think these things are the same, which you seem to do, you are an idiot.
 
Displayed 48 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 »
Advertisement
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