Where, in my statement, did you see anything even remotely related to the Taliban????
Baron Max
Bush gets the Iraqi Boot!
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Where, in my statement, did you see anything even remotely related to the Taliban????
Baron Max
Spare us the bullshit, Max
Max, one of the things that depicts you as a buffoon and a laughingstock is that you say these strange things with certain implications, and then pretend to be unaware of those implications. If you are genuinely unaware, your moralism is brazen in light of your ignorance. If you are, in fact, aware, and post the statement anyway, your moralism is bullshit.
To review, then:
If, then. If S.A.M. points out that people supported the Taliban, then ____? That is, if a certain number of people supported the Taliban, what has that to do with civil rights in the United States?
Would you say that the people should routinely violate the law because they don't like it?
An act of Congress and the National Guard: You're thinking too recently. The principled foundation for civil rights goes back to the Declaration of Independence. The legal foundation goes back to 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.
The will of the people in the United States is limited by the supreme law of the land—e.g., the U.S. Constitution. Any raw comparison of the will of the people is an inappropriate basis for the comparison you put before S.A.M.
If the will of the people in Afghanistan has any relationship to civil rights in the context you've put before S.A.M., it would help your argument immensely to actually show us that connection.
Baron Max said:
Max, one of the things that depicts you as a buffoon and a laughingstock is that you say these strange things with certain implications, and then pretend to be unaware of those implications. If you are genuinely unaware, your moralism is brazen in light of your ignorance. If you are, in fact, aware, and post the statement anyway, your moralism is bullshit.
To review, then:
If, then. If S.A.M. points out that people supported the Taliban, then ____? That is, if a certain number of people supported the Taliban, what has that to do with civil rights in the United States?
Would you say that the people should routinely violate the law because they don't like it?
An act of Congress and the National Guard: You're thinking too recently. The principled foundation for civil rights goes back to the Declaration of Independence. The legal foundation goes back to 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.
The will of the people in the United States is limited by the supreme law of the land—e.g., the U.S. Constitution. Any raw comparison of the will of the people is an inappropriate basis for the comparison you put before S.A.M.
If the will of the people in Afghanistan has any relationship to civil rights in the context you've put before S.A.M., it would help your argument immensely to actually show us that connection.
Why, ...thank you, Tiassa.
Oh, please remind me again ......you are a moderator on this site, is that correct? And isn't there something in the rules of this site against making personal attacks? And being a moderator, aren't you supposed to make sure that everyone follows the rules? Is that right? And yet, ....?
Baron Max
Wrong. An American would go to jail for assault, not for "insulting the president", unless that is an artifact of translation.
Who pissed on your bridge, troll?
There is no rule against the truth, Max. It is well-known that some do regard you as a buffoon and a laughingstock. I thought to remind you why that is. If you contest the proposition regarding the implications of your statements, make that argument. And if you choose to disagree with the response to those implications, as explained in the latter portion of my post, by all means make the point. Pathetic appeals like that one only reinforce people's questions about your integrity and intelligence, and since you obviously don't like being viewed that way—after all, you'll stop any conversation to complain about it—it might be worth your effort to offer something of substance. I think you'll find that if you give people something better to work with than pure bullshit, they won't so frequently point out the fact that you're shoveling bullshit.
Baron Max said:
There is no rule against the truth, Max. It is well-known that some do regard you as a buffoon and a laughingstock. I thought to remind you why that is. If you contest the proposition regarding the implications of your statements, make that argument. And if you choose to disagree with the response to those implications, as explained in the latter portion of my post, by all means make the point. Pathetic appeals like that one only reinforce people's questions about your integrity and intelligence, and since you obviously don't like being viewed that way—after all, you'll stop any conversation to complain about it—it might be worth your effort to offer something of substance. I think you'll find that if you give people something better to work with than pure bullshit, they won't so frequently point out the fact that you're shoveling bullshit.
First, they have a different democracy than we do. If the punishment is not unusual or cruel it stands inside our Democratic principals. Second...I think he was charged with assault. Although he will most likely get the higher end of the spectrum.
Actually, anyone who even makes threats on a forum against the US president gets indicted and jailed.
e.g. a student has been jailed for saying this in an internet chatroom: