Yes I know. My IQ routinely tests between 153 and 167.
Anything else you would like to say Alec, or will you finally stop with getting personal?
My money is on you not stopping.
For heavens sah-keh.
I said I parroted them back to you as they apply to you far more than they apply to me.
And yes that is throwing them back in your face.
It points out how juvenile you are being, and leaves no mistake how your own words are meant to be taken.
And make no mistake, I am going to continue to do it.
If you don't like it, your best bet is act like an adult and not throw them out there to begin with.
We know you are, but you shouldn't be confused on that issue at all. Killing is not murder.
Said the guy who said he wasn't arguing that it was.
Figures. I knew you didn't know what you were arguing.
Wrong.
You don't get it.
Killing like that has not always been murder.
This looks like it would be a great signature. :doh
Bodhisattva ~ "I didn't argue that it was murder"
Bodhisattva ~ "I have been arguing that it is murder all along. "
First of all, this is your failure.
I stated that "He declared war", which is clearly supported by the information I provided.
That information states that the "King Ferdinand ... gave him anything he needed to break and conquer the natives."
Wtf do you think that means? Huh? Conquer. Is this another word you need explained to you?
When the report stated that "his demands were met with surprising defiance which allowed him to then declare war" what the heck do you think "allowed him to declare war means?
You are the one assuming and alleging that he needed the Queens approval. That is on you to support. So please provide proof of it.
I supported what I said. It is now up to you to support what you say.
But I know you wont.
Because you failed to support any of your claims that you have been asked to thus far.
Your understanding is what is ****ed up.
As with the Presidents during the Vietnam Conflict, he had the authority to act in such a way.
It wasn't illegal.
Duh!
Nor do our laws of today apply to yesterday. Or did you not know that?
And if anything, the proper comparison would have been between the Generals tasked with carrying out the actual conflict, as they were doing what was allowed.
More confusion on your part. As a conquer, he was not.
Jesus ****ing H. Christ! iLOL
Yes you are.
Murder is an illegal act.
You can't call a legal killing murder.
And looky there. Here you are contradicting yourself again.
You have no clue as what you have been arguing.
I think I understand what the problem is.
If you concede that simply killing is not murder, then your position that killing the unborn is murder falls.
I would suggest we drop the discussion if this is the case, because I am not wrong, and you could never show that you aren't.