|
Post by scream on Apr 26, 2024 23:56:50 GMT
I believe it was Sotomayer that brought up the subject of Richard Nixon. He was tried, convicted, and resigned to avoid impeachment. Granted, Ford pardoned him later, but Nixon at least had the decency to be ashamed of what he had done.
And Osama bin Laden was brought to justice for 9/11 by President Obama's administration.
This is a country of laws. Once we declare a sitting president to be above the law, what message does that send?
And the only reason this argument is happening is because a sleazy snake-oil salesman wants to be president again. Trump and his narcissistic greed have ruined this country.
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 27, 2024 0:31:05 GMT
Terrorist is subjective. Terrorists are the poor man's military. So Al Queda isn't a terrorist organization. Which means your argument is even more ridiculous, since you've just declared the compound a valid military target in a war on the United States declared by Al Queda, and the kid at best unfortunate collateral damage (perfectly legal when attacking military targets) and at worst an enemy combatant (perfectly legal during a state of war). You want to stick with that argument? I'm saying the government can't just declare US citizens terrorists and magically they have no rights. I know you want that, you'd declare people like me "terrorists" and kill us if you could. Stalinist perhaps? I think this is how Stalin was so empowered to murder so many, fear created after Kirov's assassination.
|
|
|
Post by scream on Apr 27, 2024 0:31:25 GMT
So, averagejoe2021, you are LOLing at this? You think Nixon wasn't a criminal, and bin Laden wasn't a terrorist who caused the deaths of so many Americans? What has Trump done FOR this country, and not just only for himself? I've had it with Trumpers. Back on block you go.
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Apr 27, 2024 0:40:43 GMT
So Al Queda isn't a terrorist organization. Which means your argument is even more ridiculous, since you've just declared the compound a valid military target in a war on the United States declared by Al Queda, and the kid at best unfortunate collateral damage (perfectly legal when attacking military targets) and at worst an enemy combatant (perfectly legal during a state of war). You want to stick with that argument? I'm saying the government can't just declare US citizens terrorists and magically they have no rights. I know you want that, you'd declare people like me "terrorists" and kill us if you could. Stalinist perhaps? I think this is how Stalin was so empowered to murder so many, fear created after Kirov's assassination. So you're trying to push an argument by completely and totally ignoring any and all relevant facts, up to and including that Al Queda is neither a terrorist organization nor has it declared war on the US, and that killing a person sitting in the middle of an Al Queda compound is no different than killing someone on Main Street USA. And in order to deflect from this, you're going to try moronic dodges like "OMG EVERYONE'S TEH TERRORISTZ!!!!!" Hint. When your argument relies on fantasy, it's not an argument...lol
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 27, 2024 0:43:59 GMT
I'm saying the government can't just declare US citizens terrorists and magically they have no rights. I know you want that, you'd declare people like me "terrorists" and kill us if you could. Stalinist perhaps? I think this is how Stalin was so empowered to murder so many, fear created after Kirov's assassination. So you're trying to push an argument by completely and totally ignoring any and all relevant facts, up to and including that Al Queda is neither a terrorist organization nor has it declared war on the US. And in order to deflect from this, you're going to try moronic dodges like "OMG EVERYONE'S TEH TERRORISTZ!!!!!" Hint. When your argument relies on fantasy, it's not an argument...lol No, my argument is the government shouldn't be allowed to declare citizens terrorists and remove their rights and lives. There should be a trial.
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Apr 27, 2024 0:49:18 GMT
So you're trying to push an argument by completely and totally ignoring any and all relevant facts, up to and including that Al Queda is neither a terrorist organization nor has it declared war on the US. And in order to deflect from this, you're going to try moronic dodges like "OMG EVERYONE'S TEH TERRORISTZ!!!!!" Hint. When your argument relies on fantasy, it's not an argument...lol No, my argument is the government shouldn't be allowed to declare citizens terrorists and remove their rights and lives. There should be a trial. Yes, your ENTIRE ARGUMENT relies on ignoring the CIRCUMSTANCES of the incident. Which is why you're claiming Al Queda isn't a terrorist organization, never declared war on the US, and attacking their compound was no different than attacking the local library. You're also pretending that the kid was the target of the attack. None of that is true, no matter how desperately you need it to be to have a point. Here's a hint. Don't want to get killed in a drone attack? Don't hang out with high ranking Al Queda leaders in an area that the US has stated it will be conducting anti-terrorism drone operations. Duh.
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 27, 2024 1:08:18 GMT
No, my argument is the government shouldn't be allowed to declare citizens terrorists and remove their rights and lives. There should be a trial. Yes, your ENTIRE ARGUMENT relies on ignoring the CIRCUMSTANCES of the incident. Which is why you're claiming Al Queda isn't a terrorist organization, never declared war on the US, and attacking their compound was no different than attacking the local library. You're also pretending that the kid was the target of the attack. None of that is true, no matter how desperately you need it to be to have a point. Here's a hint. Don't want to get killed in a drone attack? Don't hang out with high ranking Al Queda leaders in an area that the US has stated it will be conducting anti-terrorism drone operations. Duh. Shut up with your straw man. The kid was a US citizen and killed by the US government without any trial. If he was a "terrorist" arrest him and his dad, prove them guilty in court. If you can't you're the criminal.
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Apr 27, 2024 1:12:31 GMT
Yes, your ENTIRE ARGUMENT relies on ignoring the CIRCUMSTANCES of the incident. Which is why you're claiming Al Queda isn't a terrorist organization, never declared war on the US, and attacking their compound was no different than attacking the local library. You're also pretending that the kid was the target of the attack. None of that is true, no matter how desperately you need it to be to have a point. Here's a hint. Don't want to get killed in a drone attack? Don't hang out with high ranking Al Queda leaders in an area that the US has stated it will be conducting anti-terrorism drone operations. Duh. Shut up with your straw man. The kid was a US citizen and killed by the US government without any trial. If he was a "terrorist" arrest him and his dad, prove them guilty in court. If you can't you're the criminal. Looks like you don't know what "straw man" means any more than you know what "Stalinism" means...lol And continuing to repeat an argument that relies on ignoring pretty much all of the facts only proves you don't have an argument.
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 27, 2024 1:25:17 GMT
Shut up with your straw man. The kid was a US citizen and killed by the US government without any trial. If he was a "terrorist" arrest him and his dad, prove them guilty in court. If you can't you're the criminal. Looks like you don't know what "straw man" means any more than you know what "Stalinism" means...lol And continuing to repeat an argument that relies on ignoring pretty much all of the facts only proves you don't have an argument. Stalinist describes you well enough. You're okay with extralegal murder of citizens.
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Apr 27, 2024 1:33:47 GMT
Since when were we ever governed? You'll know the difference in the not too distant future. I know the difference now and it has always been a fallacy where controlling agencies are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Apr 27, 2024 1:36:14 GMT
Looks like you don't know what "straw man" means any more than you know what "Stalinism" means...lol And continuing to repeat an argument that relies on ignoring pretty much all of the facts only proves you don't have an argument. Stalinist describes you well enough. You're okay with extralegal murder of citizens. It's perfectly legal if he was sitting on a valid military target. Also, since he wasn't the target of the attack, it meets no definition of "murder" that actually exists. All things you'd be forced to acknowledge if you didn't ignore the facts. Which is why you're ignoring the facts. But what's funny is, you claim you're not a Trumpbot...but you've got plenty to say about this incident, and absolutely nothing to say about this one: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki#:~:text=Nawar%20%22Nora%22%20al%2DAwlaki,by%20U.S.%20President%20Donald%20Trump.
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 27, 2024 1:40:51 GMT
Stalinist describes you well enough. You're okay with extralegal murder of citizens. It's perfectly legal if he was sitting on a valid military target. Also, since he wasn't the target of the attack, it meets no definition of "murder" that actually exists. All things you'd be forced to acknowledge if you didn't ignore the facts. Which is why you're ignoring the facts. But what's funny is, you claim you're not a Trumpbot...but you've got plenty to say about this incident, and absolutely nothing to say about this one: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki#:~:text=Nawar%20%22Nora%22%20al%2DAwlaki,by%20U.S.%20President%20Donald%20Trump. That's something Trump should be on trial for. I don't care about fucking pornstars or disagreement with a real estate appraiser.
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Apr 27, 2024 1:43:15 GMT
It's perfectly legal if he was sitting on a valid military target. Also, since he wasn't the target of the attack, it meets no definition of "murder" that actually exists. All things you'd be forced to acknowledge if you didn't ignore the facts. Which is why you're ignoring the facts. But what's funny is, you claim you're not a Trumpbot...but you've got plenty to say about this incident, and absolutely nothing to say about this one: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki#:~:text=Nawar%20%22Nora%22%20al%2DAwlaki,by%20U.S.%20President%20Donald%20Trump. That's something Trump should be on trial for. I don't care about fucking pornstars or disagreement with a real estate appraiser. So you'd ignore all the facts around that case too. At least you're consistent in your willful ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Apr 27, 2024 1:48:08 GMT
"The Supreme Court doesn't matter!!!!!" - Retarded Bernie supporters in 2016
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Apr 27, 2024 2:35:19 GMT
So, averagejoe2021 , you are LOLing at this? You think Nixon wasn't a criminal, and bin Laden wasn't a terrorist who caused the deaths of so many Americans? What has Trump done FOR this country, and not just only for himself? I've had it with Trumpers. Back on block you go. Yes Scream...you're nearly as melodramatic as Paul which is a massive feat in and of itself. And what had Trump done? More secure border, lower taxes, more global stability, lower inflation, better wages vs inflation, more home ownership rates, lower gas prices, better energy policy, prison reform, VA reform, no Russia expanding, had NATO pay more for defense, etc. There's a start. "I believe it was Sotomayer that brought up the subject of Richard Nixon. He was tried, convicted, and resigned to avoid impeachment. Granted, Ford pardoned him later, but Nixon at least had the decency to be ashamed of what he had done." Trump did nothing worthy of impeachment. "And Osama bin Laden was brought to justice for 9/11 by President Obama's administration." And that false equivalent is material when compared to a 1 term president running again....how, exactly? "This is a country of laws. Once we declare a sitting president to be above the law, what message does that send?" No one is saying the president is above the law. Its simply a matter of establishing where the immunity line is drawn and SCOTUS will likely have lower courts present their cases accordingly. "And the only reason this argument is happening is because a sleazy snake-oil salesman wants to be president again. Trump and his narcissistic greed have ruined this country." Close. The only reasons its happening is to prevent him from running again. From the ballot removal to scores of frivolous lawsuits, to two theatrical impeachments... you all will do anything. You're acting like children. Its unnerving people like you vote... or breed or drive for that matter. "I've had it with Trumpers. Back on block you go." Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. What were you expecting? Something like.... **Oh no... please don't. Whatever will I do if one of the board snowflakes put me on ignore....again?!
|
|