Article 45.1

[insein]

The problem of arguing with spidey is that his whole thought process is based upon lies and rhetoric. Therefore when you present truth, it is perceived by him as lie. When he presents lie, it is truth. It is the sign of a delusional mind. Im afraid we can't help him.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
small dick Rambo-

#1 If you don't give a shit about the Geneva Convention, you don't give a shit about the Constitution or the law in general. You think if a President wants to break the law, he should be able to. I'm sure you felt the same about President Clinton. Thanks for making your views clear, Mr. Anarchy.

#2 What are you saying? That President's who break the law and willfully kill civilians should be held accountable for it? Make up your mind please, which is it? Can the President break the law when he wants, or not? Or can only Republican Presidents break the law?

#3 Is it at all possible for people like you to defend your corrupt lying criminal President without talking about Bill Clinton?

No clear violation of the Geneva convention or the constitution by, and here is the biggie, GEORGE BUSH. Try and tie him into that in a court of law. Bubba and the Demos set the current precedent though, he was in clear violation of American law and nothing happened so throw that little part of the constitution out the window.

Yeah willfully kill civilians LMAO! Dude do you know how pathetic you sound? Site me some irrefutable evidence where civilians have been intentionally targeted then will talk, i'll be waiting.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
You already know what I think, I put the question up there for you!

Well, Clinton broke the law didn't he? Then it was right for him to be impeached.

I never voted for the guy, I sure don't appreciate NAFTA along with the rest of the planet, and he put more people in prison for non-violent drug offenses than any President in history. Not to mention Hillary, she did more damage to liberalism, feminism, and the Democratic party than anyone in the 90's. Did he do a better job than Shrub, Sr. would have done? Of course, but that's not saying much at all. When are you major party people going to wake up and realize you are the ones wasting your votes and screwing up the nation? Nothing will ever get solved if we keep putting Republicrats in office.

You don't have to worry about CowShrubbie ever being impeached for purjury. He likes to lie a lot, so he never takes any oaths.


And I don't know what you think. Do you think President's should be impeached for breaking the law or not? If your answer is yes, then both Bill Clinton and CowBushie deserve(d) impeachment, if your answer is no, then neither of them did. Make your position clear.


And I will put this question to you as well - is it at all possible for you to defend the actions of your President without using Slick Willie's name?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by insein
The problem of arguing with spidey is that his whole thought process is based upon lies and rhetoric. Therefore when you present truth, it is perceived by him as lie. When he presents lie, it is truth. It is the sign of a delusional mind. Im afraid we can't help him.

But insein its fun fucking with a pacifist pussy who's real name is probably Jethro like this. This guy is a backwoods clown. I'm sure in LA with all the rednecks there he probably took daily ass whoopins.

Hey tubashit you support queer marriage also?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Well, Clinton broke the law didn't he? Then it was right for him to be impeached.

I never voted for the guy, I sure don't appreciate NAFTA along with the rest of the planet, and he put more people in prison for non-violent drug offenses than any President in history. Not to mention Hillary, she did more damage to liberalism, feminism, and the Democratic party than anyone in the 90's. Did he do a better job than Shrub, Sr. would have done? Of course, but that's not saying much at all. When are you major party people going to wake up and realize you are the ones wasting your votes and screwing up the nation? Nothing will ever get solved if we keep putting Republicrats in office.

You don't have to worry about CowShrubbie ever being impeached for purjury. He likes to lie a lot, so he never takes any oaths.


And I don't know what you think. Do you think President's should be impeached for breaking the law or not? If your answer is yes, then both Bill Clinton and CowBushie deserve(d) impeachment, if your answer is no, then neither of them did. Make your position clear.


And I will put this question to you as well - is it at all possible for you to defend the actions of your President without using Slick Willie's name? [/QUOTE

Show me some evidence that Bush has willingly broken the law? Or do you just spout horseshit without any factual backup on a daily basis?

 

[insein]

Originally posted by OCA
But insein its fun fucking with a pacifist pussy who's real name is probably Jethro like this. This guy is a backwoods clown. I'm sure in LA with all the rednecks there he probably took daily ass whoopins.

Hey tubashit you support queer marriage also?

Ive played with him enough this weekend. Ill let you toss him around for awhile.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by OCA
No clear violation of the Geneva convention or the constitution by, and here is the biggie, GEORGE BUSH. Try and tie him into that in a court of law. Bubba and the Demos set the current precedent though, he was in clear violation of American law and nothing happened so throw that little part of the constitution out the window.

Yeah willfully kill civilians LMAO! Dude do you know how pathetic you sound? Site me some irrefutable evidence where civilians have been intentionally targeted then will talk, i'll be waiting.

No clear violation? Can you read? Read Article 45.1. Has Bush determined the prisoners' status at Guantanamo Bay using competent tribunals? Gee George, the answer the that is NO. That sounds like a clear violation to me. What are you going to tell me next, that the sky is green and 2 + 2 = 5?

I'm afraid Slick Willie set no precent. It was the Senate's job to convict him, not himself. And it was the Republican prosecutor team from the House whose job it was to convince the Senate to convict him, and they failed.

I asked if you could possibly defend your President's criminal activity without invoking Slick's name. I guess not. That's pretty sad. Good thing Clinton was President, or you would have no defense at all.


Irrefutable evidence intentionally kill civilians? Gee Rambo, that ones not to hard, what are you, in 5th grade? Where do civilians live? Cities. Where did we drop lots and lots of bombs? Cities. What do bombs do? Blow stuff up and kill people. Did we drop these bombs on cities where civilians live on purpose? Yes. Therefore, we intentionally killed civilians. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
But my position should of been clear from the begining of this rediculous statement of yours! He did not break the law.

And what the hell are you saying about using his name?

Spidey you are truly out there with your position!

So let me get this straight.

You agree that 45.1 of the Protocol says that all persons who have taken part in hostilities have the right to a POW status pending a hearing by a tribunal.


You further agree that the "detainees" at Guantanamo Bay were never granted POW status by the Bush administration, temporary or otherwise.


And you are telling me that Bush did not break the law, and I'M the crazy one? Just what is it that I'm missing about your position here? Because you position makes no logical sense whatsoever.

And I am saying that you and the rest of your war criminal appeasing friends are incapable of defending CowShrubbies actions without talking about Bill Clinton.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by OCA
You make absolutely zero sense, hey your junior high debate team said they are missing their practice book, better give it back.
If you think or ever thought i'm a liberal you are a complete fool and have problem with comprehension. Hey did you vote for Dave Duke there in Louisiana?

Right, I make no sense. I have shown you the law, shown you how the President has broken the law, and recommended he be impeached for breaking the law, and I'm the crazy one. Whatever. (Keep it up liberal in disguise, you're doing a wonderful job of fooling everyone else! As soon as fence straddlers see your rubish, they'll fall right over to the left! Good job!)


Vote for David Duke? If you think I would ever cast my vote for a known bigot and former "Grand Wizard" or whatever of the KKK, you're out of your mind.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
First off I agreed to nothing that you have stated thus far! I brought the Clinton thing up only to see what your opinion was as a liberal, I could care less if his name is mentioned again.
And to be honest, I see you running around this board calling people traitor's when you seriously need to be considering were you stand in this world!

You brought the Clinton thing up to what - distract everyone from the subject at hand because you don't want people to know what a criminal Shrub is? Oh, OK, I understand. Good job, nice work, you should work for the Ministry of Truth.

So then, what is it you disagree with? Do you disagree with my interpretation of what 45.1 means, or do you disagree that the President has violated 45.1, or both?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
So let me get this straight.

You agree that 45.1 of the Protocol says that all persons who have taken part in hostilities have the right to a POW status pending a hearing by a tribunal.


You further agree that the "detainees" at Guantanamo Bay were never granted POW status by the Bush administration, temporary or otherwise.


And you are telling me that Bush did not break the law, and I'M the crazy one? Just what is it that I'm missing about your position here? Because you position makes no logical sense whatsoever.

And I am saying that you and the rest of your war criminal appeasing friends are incapable of defending CowShrubbies actions without talking about Bill Clinton.

These people have not been classified 1 way or the other nor are they American citizens so fuck em. Why are you more concerned with Iraqi's rights than about Americans? Maybe you'd like to live in Baghdad?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Obviously a rocket scientist you are not, moreover were are your facts supporting this?

I've already laid out the fact, but I'll do it again because you apparenly have to be told twice.


Civilians live in cities.

Bombs destroy things and kill people

We dropped lots and lots of bombs on cities on purpose.

Therefore, we killed civilians on purpose.


Can you connect the dots now, or do I need to hold your hand?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
No clear violation? Can you read? Read Article 45.1. Has Bush determined the prisoners' status at Guantanamo Bay using competent tribunals? Gee George, the answer the that is NO. That sounds like a clear violation to me. What are you going to tell me next, that the sky is green and 2 + 2 = 5?

I'm afraid Slick Willie set no precent. It was the Senate's job to convict him, not himself. And it was the Republican prosecutor team from the House whose job it was to convince the Senate to convict him, and they failed.

I asked if you could possibly defend your President's criminal activity without invoking Slick's name. I guess not. That's pretty sad. Good thing Clinton was President, or you would have no defense at all.


Irrefutable evidence intentionally kill civilians? Gee Rambo, that ones not to hard, what are you, in 5th grade? Where do civilians live? Cities. Where did we drop lots and lots of bombs? Cities. What do bombs do? Blow stuff up and kill people. Did we drop these bombs on cities where civilians live on purpose? Yes. Therefore, we intentionally killed civilians. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

I guess you think real war is like a video game, its not. Yes civilians die, thats a sad but unavoidable part of war. Now how about the irrefutable evidence of intentional targeting of civilians? Or should I stop holding my breath?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
I've already laid out the fact, but I'll do it again because you apparenly have to be told twice.


Civilians live in cities.

Bombs destroy things and kill people

We dropped lots and lots of bombs on cities on purpose.

Therefore, we killed civilians on purpose.


Can you connect the dots now, or do I need to hold your hand?

Spiderman, I suggest losing the attitude. Just my 2 cents.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by OCA
These people have not been classified 1 way or the other nor are they American citizens so fuck em. Why are you more concerned with Iraqi's rights than about Americans? Maybe you'd like to live in Baghdad?

Exactly, now your getting it. They have not been classified one way or another, but the law says the must be classified as POW's until a hearing by a tribunal. Furthermore, if ou look at 45.1, nowhere does it say you must be an American citizen. You're doing great, a little more, and you might actually be thinking logically!

Please point out where I said I was more concerned about Iraqi's rights than Americans. Until then, stop making stuff up in your head that you wished I believed because it makes you feel better about yourself and your war criminal Shrub.


Perhaps you'd be better suited to Baghdad. There is much disregard for the law there, you know, that think you don't think people should have to follow?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
The problem of arguing with spidey is that his whole thought process is based upon lies and rhetoric. Therefore when you present truth, it is perceived by him as lie. When he presents lie, it is truth. It is the sign of a delusional mind. Im afraid we can't help him.

Please tell everyone where in this thread I have lied, and you will have a point!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by OCA
But insein its fun fucking with a pacifist pussy who's real name is probably Jethro like this. This guy is a backwoods clown. I'm sure in LA with all the rednecks there he probably took daily ass whoopins.

Hey tubashit you support queer marriage also?

If you can ask the question without being a dickface, I'll answer it Mad Rambo.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Please tell everyone where in this thread I have lied, and you will have a point!

You've lied by saying we've purposely killed civilians. Bombing a town where the insurgents shamelessly hide behind the civilians is not intentionally killing civilians. What is it about war that you don't understand? I'm still waiting for that irrefutable evidence also>

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by OCA
I guess you think real war is like a video game, its not. Yes civilians die, thats a sad but unavoidable part of war. Now how about the irrefutable evidence of intentional targeting of civilians? Or should I stop holding my breath?

OK, set let me get this straight.

You drop bombs, you know that civilians will die, and that's not intentionally killing civilians?

Interesting. So if I'm driving down the street, and you get in my way, and I intentionally run over you knowing full well I could kill you, and you die, according to your logic, I did not intentionally kill you? You paint a pretty messed up world Rambo.

 

[eric]

I have not laughed so hard in quite a long time. Thanks Spiderman !!