Did You Serve ?

[robdawg1]

You made the claim I condone torture
Back it.
Its really that simple.

i just did

 

[robdawg1]

Let me guess...still being dishonest rob

Here is my position which has been stated several times




Is there something about that you do not understand?

follow up with research....it has always been torture by international laws, which we helped to create.....

 

[The Man]

It really doesnt get any simpler.

"While it legally may have not been torture at the time....it needs to be illegal now."


If you do not understand that simple statement then go back to school.

 

[The Man]

follow up with research....it has always been torture by international laws, which we helped to create.....

Then take it up with your congressman.
My position is below

While it legally may have not been torture at the time....it needs to be illegal now.

Now if it was already illegal then it needs to stay illegal.
Let me guess..that will also be to difficult for you to understand.

 

[The Man]

i just did

where
Do you know the definition of condone..I have posted that in here as well

 

[The Man]

And here it is again

con·done/kənˈdōn/
Verb:

Accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
Approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance.

Now show where I support allowing it to continue.
It doesnt exists.
Its really that simple.

 

[The Man]

If this isnt condoning torture i dont know what is.....

Are you that thick rob?

Lets take Saudi Arabia for instance.
They can and will cut off your hand for theft.

If they change that law tomorrow...{with jail time being the only other alternative}

It does no good to bitch about those that have had the hands cut off...that wont make em grow back
Nor do I condemn those that did the cutting as it was their job at the time.

 

[The Man]

If you do not understand...research basic English before responding please

 

[robdawg1]

so by saying you won't condemn someone for torture explain how not condemning isn't the same as condoning....it's the same thing TM....are you really going to continue this ludicrous argument that because you said one line that it disregards all these other statements condoning it at the time, but now it is illegal...well no more,

so to recap your position is when they did it legally great job on your torture, but when they made it illegal, ok guys...no more....but i dont condone it...


any of that make sense there TM...maybe you should join your homies you posed with in the caveman pics, and leave the debate threads to those who can....

 

[Tim]

Are you that thick rob?

Lets take Saudi Arabia for instance.
They can and will cut off your hand for theft.

If they change that law tomorrow...{with jail time being the only other alternative}

It does no good to bitch about those that have had the hands cut off...that wont make em grow back
Nor do I condemn those that did the cutting as it was their job at the time.

So what you are saying is you were FOR torture before you were AGAINST it.

Got it

But wait! Are you saying that you wouldn't water board some guy who just planted a nuclear bomb in the capital and he was the only person who can tell you where it was and it was set to go off in less than 24 hours????

 

[The Man]

so by saying you won't condemn someone for torture explain how not condemning isn't the same as condoning....it's the same thing TM....are you really going to continue this ludicrous argument that because you said one line that it disregards all these other statements condoning it at the time, but now it is illegal...well no more,

so to recap your position is when they did it legally great job on your torture, but when they made it illegal, ok guys...no more....but i dont condone it...


any of that make sense there TM...maybe you should join your homies you posed with in the caveman pics, and leave the debate threads to those who can....

They were doing thier job rob.
Just like the guy that juices you for a death penalty case...do we condemn the guy that gave the juice?

No...its really that simple rob

 

[The Man]

So what you are saying is you were FOR torture before you were AGAINST it.

Got it

But wait! Are you saying that you wouldn't water board some guy who just planted a nuclear bomb in the capital and he was the only person who can tell you where it was and it was set to go off in less than 24 hours????

I have never stated I supported torture

 

[The Man]

so by saying you won't condemn someone for torture explain how not condemning isn't the same as condoning....it's the same thing TM....are you really going to continue this ludicrous argument that because you said one line that it disregards all these other statements condoning it at the time, but now it is illegal...well no more,

so to recap your position is when they did it legally great job on your torture, but when they made it illegal, ok guys...no more....but i dont condone it...


any of that make sense there TM...maybe you should join your homies you posed with in the caveman pics, and leave the debate threads to those who can....

Back to Saudi Arabia for an example.
lets say it becomes illegal {hand cutting}
The news guy announces it.
He doesnt have to either condemn nor condone it.
You cant say he condoned it because he didnt say he condemned it.

 

[The Man]

Now please provide documentation to support the ludicrous allegation that I condone torture.

 

[The Man]

And one more time for the record...I do not support torture.

 

[robdawg1]

Back to Saudi Arabia for an example.
lets say it becomes illegal {hand cutting}
The news guy announces it.
He doesnt have to either condemn nor condone it.
You cant say he condoned it because he didnt say he condemned it.

you said point blank you didn't condemn...news guy doesnt give a position, he just announces, you said it was fine to do it when it was legal(i.e. condoning it) but that now it is ilegal and you dont support it....what is your position...you're actual position on waterboarding....forget the word torture, just the word waterboarding....

 

[The Man]

you said point blank you didn't condemn...news guy doesnt give a position, he just announces, you said it was fine to do it when it was legal(i.e. condoning it) but that now it is ilegal and you dont support it....what is your position...you're actual position on waterboarding....forget the word torture, just the word waterboarding....

you said point blank you didn't condemn

I do not support torture.....more that what the news man gives but you want to condemn me?

I have stated several times I do not support torture...what do you want.

 

[The Man]

Do you believe we should let any prisoner go that is tired of being confined.....how liberal are you?...just curious.

 

[robdawg1]

Do you believe we should let any prisoner go that is tired of being confined.....how liberal are you?...just curious.

to answer your question, no. However, serving a prison sentence after due process trial and conviction has not ever been considered torture.

Now answer my question please....
what is your specific position on waterboarding?

 

[Stone]

Cough cough
Hate to spoil the honeymoon stone and tim.
Where have I advocated legalized torture in this thread.

I see why you two are made for each other.
This is what I said


From the other thread which is what prompted the discussion.

Now do one of you two cumm drunk love birds one to explain how

"While it legally may have not been torture at the time....it needs to be illegal now" by me

equates to

"you do and have advocated legalized torture, in this thread."

No where have I advocated legalized torture.

I havent mentioned this several times...but you have refused to show the posts.
Perhaps between you and your new mrs one of you can find this mystery post of mine...you know after you two are done swapping fluid

You naughty little bitch