- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Wrong!Yes it is.
Yes it would.
That fact that not everybody holds the same standards, proves it is not.
Wrong!Yes it is.
Yes it would.
:laughat::doh
Still trying to judge and/or pigeonhole huh? What a shame.
Ain't gonna work.
And yes you do have a problem with not understanding that your juvenile actions to criticize, were juvenile.
Relate to?Insanity. MLK is a much more modern figure that more people can relate to. Unlike that loon Christopher Columbus.
Not.And he was brought up on charges for his actions, so apparently ILLEGAL.
No, I am saying that law is determinative. How could you miss that after all this time?
I am also saying that in this instance you judge the individual by the standards of the time they were in.
:dohI even made a psychological assessment.
Not.
You have no idea what he was actually charged with.
I asked you before to support such an assertion and you failed.
Are you going to do it this time?
But as we know, he was cleared of the most serious charges.
So obviously what he did was not illegal.
Relate to?
Not!
It is about honoring the individual for their contributions to this country.
What do you think he contributed that is of such significance?
Nope.
MLK day was undeserved.
Columbus day is deserved.
Why is that?
Columbus for what? What did he do to deserve glory? He found some land, tortured and killed people to rule it. His rule led literally to millions of people dead.
MLK was a leader of the Civil Rights Movement that lead directly to ending Segragation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He helped literally millions of people.
Sure sure sure... standards of the time. But what is better about finding some land than helping millions of people gain equal rights?
Relate to?
Not!
It is about honoring the individual for their contributions to this country.
What do you think he contributed that is of such significance?
:doh
Please send me your credentials so I can make a formal complaint.
Relate to?
Not!
It is about honoring the individual for their contributions to this country.
What do you think he contributed that is of such significance?
Excon. How many posts do you make without a major negative in it? Nope! Not! Wrong! No!
Wrong!!
He made one a few pages back. :lol:
Wtf? That hasn't been an issue.The issue that you are not making clear is if it takes the majority are the totality to make laws right or wrong.
That is a misrepresentation of what I stated.You have said that slavery was fine
Wrong. No excuses are needed for action which are legal.You are making excuses for Columbus because specific murder laws did not apply to those specific natives.
Says the guy who has been all over the place.You are kinda all over the place, really.
It isn't there.Read the two first posts on the thread.
Christopher Columbus killed people. Martin Luther King did not. The choice is clear.
It isn't there.
Which was also pointed out to you, as you are assuming.
Yes, the choice is clear.
Columbus over MLK.
We have already been over this. You are wrong.Columbus had literally NOTHING to do with the United States of America. He never even set foot here.
[/QUOTE]More misrepresentation of what I have stated.Wtf? That hasn't been an issue.
But it takes neither, or did you not know that. Personal opinion is just that, personal opinion.
That is a misrepresentation of what I stated.
You have made reference to other things being fine beause not everybody agrees with it.
Wrong. No excuses are needed for action which are legal.
What he did was legal.
Says the guy who has been all over the place.
You are not arguing it was murder, yet you were arguing it was murder all along. Do'h!
False analogies.
You weren't arguing legality, but you were arguing legality.
It was all quoted.
That is being all over the place and not even knowing what you have argued. Confused.
The problem is that you are not correct.Since when does one need credentials to be correct? I am very good at psychology and the law. No credentials.
Self represented twice in Court. Won both times... against attorneys. I very well could be wrong about you, as this is just an internet discussion.