Liberal Forum

nefarious101 » 25 Nov 2025, 6:44 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Nov 2025, 6:44 pm

Since we won and you lost we decide what the facts are....

you're dealing with the consequences of losing

LGBTP progressivism is dead...it's a rotting corpsemen as the majik negro would say

**** off you cant change facts- stupid ****

jerrab » 25 Nov 2025, 7:33 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Nov 2025, 7:33 pm

**** off you cant change facts- stupid ****

typical....your **** don't sell so you get pissed off and triggered

childish but expected....thanks for the display

nefarious101 » 25 Nov 2025, 8:21 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Nov 2025, 8:21 pm

typical....your **** don't sell so you get pissed off and triggered

childish but expected....thanks for the display

you live in a **** up fantasy world.

Huey » 25 Nov 2025, 12:28 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Nov 2025, 12:28 pm

jerrab » 25 Nov 2025, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Nov 2025, 12:23 pm

====================

• Violation of International Law: Critics argue the actions may violate international law and U.S. laws against murder and assassination because drug cartels do not fit the traditional definition of non-state armed groups. International law permits force in self-defense against an imminent armed attack, a rationale experts say falls short in these cases.
• Civilian Targeting: Under international law, even criminal suspects are considered civilians and cannot be deliberately targeted with lethal force unless they pose an imminent threat. Experts suggest the administration has not provided evidence of such immediate threats, and historical precedent for maritime drug interdiction has focused on non-lethal seizure and arrest.

Yeah, we get all that.  Now where are the illegal orders Trump as issued. 

 

 

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 9:51 am

Huey » 25 Nov 2025, 12:28 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Nov 2025, 12:28 pm

Yeah, we get all that.  Now where are the illegal orders Trump as issued.

he admits the blasting of boats in the middle of the ocean are illegal.

 

I need a quote with a link that shows trump admitted that he issued illegal orders.  You know ow, Dum Dum, I wasn’t going to issue a vote on the dumbest poster thread.  But, you are so **** stupid I gotta do it.

jerrab » 25 Nov 2025, 9:07 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Nov 2025, 9:07 pm

you live in a **** up fantasy world.

and that's your excuse for losing badly

 

jerrab » 25 Nov 2025, 4:41 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Nov 2025, 4:41 pm

-------------------------------------------------------

While they don't specify which orders could be considered unlawful, it is a concern that Kelly, a former captain in the U.S. Navy, has raised for several weeks in interviews with reporters, in the wake of the series of deadly strikes the U.S. military has launched on boats in Caribbean and eastern Pacific waters that the administration alleges are carrying drugs.

Exactly everyone's point...

he has absolutely zero authority to decide what is legal or illegal based on feefees alone...the military is in full control...not some **** idiots who think they "know better" based on absolutely nothing...  
 
 

Huey » 26 Nov 2025, 6:05 am » wrote: ↑

26 Nov 2025, 6:05 am

I need a quote with a link that shows trump admitted that he issued illegal orders.  You know ow, Dum Dum, I wasn’t going to issue a vote on the dumbest poster thread.  But, you are so **** stupid I gotta do it.

first answer this question --is it lawful to not obey illegal orders?

---------------------------------------------------------------------A video released last week by six Democratic lawmakers has set off an acrimonious partisan debate over what constitutes treason and reflects a larger political debate about what constitutes patriotism in today's polarised political environment.In the 90-second video, the six Democrats, all with military or national security backgrounds, reminded military personnel they had the right – the obligation, even - to disobey "unlawful orders".Although they did not detail what orders they had in mind, they are thought to have been referring to the deployment of National Guard troops to US cities and the US Navy raids on alleged drugs traffickers in the Caribbean."This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens," they said.You have taken an oath to defend the US constitution, they reminded their military listeners, and "the threats to our constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home". In a way, the rhetoric does not differ too markedly from some used by the president himself, who has warned, including to speeches to military audiences, that America faces an "enemy within".Trump's response to the video, however, was quick and sharp.He called it "seditious behaviour, punishable by death" and said the Democratic lawmakers should be arrested and tried. He also shared Truth Social posts that echoed those calls, including one recommending that the six should be hanged.

jerrab » 28 Nov 2025, 2:27 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 2:27 pm

first answer this question --is it lawful to not obey illegal orders?

---------------------------------------------------------------------A video released last week by six Democratic lawmakers has set off an acrimonious partisan debate over what constitutes treason and reflects a larger political debate about what constitutes patriotism in today's polarised political environment.In the 90-second video, the six Democrats, all with military or national security backgrounds, reminded military personnel they had the right – the obligation, even - to disobey "unlawful orders".Although they did not detail what orders they had in mind, they are thought to have been referring to the deployment of National Guard troops to US cities and the US Navy raids on alleged drugs traffickers in the Caribbean."This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens," they said.You have taken an oath to defend the US constitution, they reminded their military listeners, and "the threats to our constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home". In a way, the rhetoric does not differ too markedly from some used by the president himself, who has warned, including to speeches to military audiences, that America faces an "enemy within".Trump's response to the video, however, was quick and sharp.He called it "seditious behaviour, punishable by death" and said the Democratic lawmakers should be arrested and tried. He also shared Truth Social posts that echoed those calls, including one recommending that the six should be hanged.

u have been asked numerous times to provide a link of TRUMP saying he has issued ILLEGAL orders. And just like the six treasonous congressional leaders, u can't provide or name one. U R a lying Scum Bag.
 

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 10:09 am

Huey » 26 Nov 2025, 6:05 am » wrote: ↑

26 Nov 2025, 6:05 am

I need a quote with a link that shows trump admitted that he issued illegal orders.  You know ow, Dum Dum, I wasn’t going to issue a vote on the dumbest poster thread.  But, you are so **** stupid I gotta do it.

first answer this question --is it lawful to not obey illegal orders?

---------------------------------------------------------------------A video released last week by six Democratic lawmakers has set off an acrimonious partisan debate over what constitutes treason and reflects a larger political debate about what constitutes patriotism in today's polarised political environment.In the 90-second video, the six Democrats, all with military or national security backgrounds, reminded military personnel they had the right – the obligation, even - to disobey "unlawful orders".Although they did not detail what orders they had in mind, they are thought to have been referring to the deployment of National Guard troops to US cities and the US Navy raids on alleged drugs traffickers in the Caribbean."This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens," they said.You have taken an oath to defend the US constitution, they reminded their military listeners, and "the threats to our constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home". In a way, the rhetoric does not differ too markedly from some used by the president himself, who has warned, including to speeches to military audiences, that America faces an "enemy within".Trump's response to the video, however, was quick and sharp.He called it "seditious behaviour, punishable by death" and said the Democratic lawmakers should be arrested and tried. He also shared Truth Social posts that echoed those calls, including one recommending that the six should be hanged.

 

Post specific illegal orders.

MR-7 » 28 Nov 2025, 2:41 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 2:41 pm

u have been asked numerous times to provide a link of TRUMP saying he has issued ILLEGAL orders. And just like the six treasonous congressional leaders, u can't provide or name one. U R a lying Scum Bag.

zonk

you did not answer zee question

Huey » 28 Nov 2025, 2:44 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 2:44 pm

Post specific illegal orders.

it is a yes or no question

Huey » 28 Nov 2025, 2:44 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 2:44 pm

Post specific illegal orders.

-is it lawful to not obey illegal orders?

yes or no?
 

Huey » 28 Nov 2025, 2:44 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 2:44 pm

Post specific illegal orders.

it is a simple yes or no question.

jerrab » 28 Nov 2025, 2:58 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 2:58 pm

-is it lawful to not obey illegal orders?

yes or no?

You were asked a question.  You have diverted.  WHy are YOU afraid to answer.  Give me a specific illegal order and I will **** answer.  Stop running.

Example, Grann Vapors, if a super officer or NCO told me to shoot an POW that would be an illegal order.  

Huey » 28 Nov 2025, 3:31 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 3:31 pm

You were asked a question.  You have diverted.  WHy are YOU afraid to answer.  Give me a specific illegal order and I will **** answer.  Stop running.

Example, Grann Vapors, if a super officer or NCO told me to shoot an POW that would be an illegal order.

since you refuse to answer of course it is legal to disobey illegal orders, so why is trump so mad?

------------------------------
The phrase "methinks you protest too much" is a misquotation of the line, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", from Shakespeare's play Hamlet. It means that someone's overly strong denial suggests they are hiding the truth. The quote is used to express suspicion that an excessive insistence to prove innocence actually points to guilt. 

----------------------------------------------

why does he protest so much?

Huey » 28 Nov 2025, 3:31 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 3:31 pm

You were asked a question.  You have diverted.  WHy are YOU afraid to answer.  Give me a specific illegal order and I will **** answer.  Stop running.

Example, Grann Vapors, if a super officer or NCO told me to shoot an POW that would be an illegal order.

they are killing the survivors //  illegal

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 10:10 am

Huey » 28 Nov 2025, 3:31 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 3:31 pm

You were asked a question.  You have diverted.  WHy are YOU afraid to answer.  Give me a specific illegal order and I will **** answer.  Stop running.

Example, Grann Vapors, if a super officer or NCO told me to shoot an POW that would be an illegal order.

since you refuse to answer of course it is legal to disobey illegal orders, so why is trump so mad?

------------------------------
The phrase "methinks you protest too much" is a misquotation of the line, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", from Shakespeare's play Hamlet. It means that someone's overly strong denial suggests they are hiding the truth. The quote is used to express suspicion that an excessive insistence to prove innocence actually points to guilt. 

----------------------------------------------

why does he protest so much?

 

Since you refuse to answer the question put before yours I gave you an EXAMPLE of an illegal order.

Granny Vapors, another example of an illegal order would be ordering a soldier to shoot a civilian. 



 

jerrab » 28 Nov 2025, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 4:06 pm

they are killing the survivors //  illegal

 

Survivors of what?  What are you so afraid to be specific, Granny V?
 

Huey » 28 Nov 2025, 4:08 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 4:08 pm

Survivors of what?  What are you so afraid to be specific, Granny V?

-------------------------------------

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/28/politics ... -caribbean

People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.
 

jerrab » 28 Nov 2025, 4:34 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 4:34 pm

-------------------------------------

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/28/politics ... -caribbean

People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.

US military carried out second strike killing survivors on a suspected drug boat that had already been attacked