Then you must be that uneducated tool you speak of.
In his days standards he was allowed to do what he did. That is not murder. As you admit, it is killing. Legal killing.
You are trying to apply today's standards to his time frame. That is wrong.
Like I said.
Only an uneducated tool would judge him by today's standards.
Hop cute you think you made a point.Rape has happened for thousands of years, even before it was made illegal. Your argument is ****ing stupid. End of story.
Hop cute you think you made a point.
:lamo:doh:lamo:doh:lamo
You didn't.
Your argument is and has been shown to be ****ing stupid.
There is a difference between killing and murder.
Killing is the taking of life.
Murder is the illegal taking of life. It is the very reason abortion is not murder.
Columbus's killings were legal.
Sorry you don't like the facts, but they be what they be.
You are only speaking of yourself skippy.Nobody is disputing that skippy. Murder is the illegal taking of life while killing is not. Apparently you didn't ge the simplicity of my point... figures. *shrugs*
Go ahead and think that you are really clever though... the only fan that you have that is bigger than you is your mom, huh?
You are only speaking of yourself skippy.
You were wrong and shown to be wrong.
He isn't a murderer.
Another ridiculous comparison.Right... and an apple wasn't an apple before English came along.
You are a really really smart person. Honestly...
Another ridiculous comparison.
Your argument is and has been shown to be ****ing stupid.
There is a difference between killing and murder.
Killing is the taking of life.
Murder is the illegal taking of life.
Columbus's killings were legal.
Sorry you don't like the facts, but they be what they be.
You clearly out of your depth.If it was an apple does that mean that cave men spoke English?
Go back to grade school, you are out of you depth... but please, don't stop thinking that you are super awesome!
You clearly out of your depth.
Your argument is and has been shown to be ****ing stupid.
There is a difference between killing and murder.
Killing is the taking of life.
Murder is the illegal taking of life.
Columbus's killings were legal.
Sorry you don't like the facts, but they be what they be.
You clearly out of your depth.
Your argument is and has been shown to be ****ing stupid.
There is a difference between killing and murder.
Killing is the taking of life.
Murder is the illegal taking of life.
Columbus's killings were legal.
Sorry you don't like the facts, but they be what they be.
By 1498, conditions were so terrible that Spain had to send someone else to govern the colony, and Columbus was arrested. He was transported back to Spain in chains, to stand trial for his crimes. He was stripped of his titles and all claims to the lands that he “discovered.”
That is because it applies to you.That is the third time you have parroted back my own line against me.
Is that what your problem is? Figures.mom praised you too much and now you have a complex.
Your argument doesn't make sense.Your argument doesn't make sense. He was initially charged for murder as noted in the OP.
Christopher Columbus: The Man, The Myth, The Murderer - Liberty Crier
By 1498, conditions were so terrible that Spain had to send someone else to govern the colony, and Columbus was arrested. He was transported back to Spain in chains, to stand trial for his crimes. He was stripped of his titles and all claims to the lands that he “discovered.”
If he had been charged with the crime of murder (it being one of the most serious charges) he was later cleared, making him not a murderer. Or do you not know that?By 1498, conditions were so terrible that Spain had to send someone else to govern the colony, and Columbus was arrested. He was transported back to Spain in chains, to stand trial for his crimes. He was stripped of his titles and all claims to the lands that he “discovered.” He was later cleared of the most serious charges, but his titles were no longer his to enjoy.
Your argument doesn't make sense.
Where in what you quoted, or read, does it say he was charged, let alone, convicted of murder?
Huh?
Where?
Let me answer that for you.
It doesn't.
What is even more funny than you assuming something not stated, is you injecting yourself into such a conversation when you don't know what you are talking about, and then purposely leave off relevant information from what you quoted, which is dishonesty.
If he had been charged with the crime of murder (it being one of the most serious charges) he was later cleared, making him not a murderer. Or do you not know that?
You clearly out of your depth.
Your argument is and has been shown to be ****ing stupid.
There is a difference between killing and murder.
Killing is the taking of life.
Murder is the illegal taking of life.
Columbus's killings were legal.
Sorry you don't like the facts, but they be what they be.
Well you are wrong, as he wasn't.I'm sure it was quite easy for a person to have their charges cleared who had money back then, especially a person who did favors for the queen in the past. It doesn't take a GENIUS to figure out this guy was a scumbag murderer. Not surprising to see YOU defending him.
Well you are wrong as he wasn't.
Correcting your false image of him is not defending him. He needs no defense from a crime he didn't commit.
But there is no problem correcting you and the false propaganda you sadly choose to believe.
Oh, I see. So now you're claiming that it never happened. Oh okay. :roll:
More dishonesty on your part huh?
Figures.
Did I say it didn't happen, or did I say it wasn't murder?
You are assuming those where his charges.What he did was illegal. THAT is why he was brought up on charges.
You are assuming those where his charges.
So prove it!
Secondly, (and repeating myself again because you are obviously not paying attention), He was cleared of the most serious charges. With murder being a most serious charge, he stands cleared of it if he was even charged with it.
Therefore not a murderer. That is how the law works whether you like it or not.
As he was allowed to do as he did, you are wrong.He was a mass murderer. Some kangaroo court from the 15th century doesn't convince me otherwise.
As he was allowed to do as he did, you are wrong.
Exactingly legally does not make one a murder.
From all of the things I've read about him, that's exactly what he was and would be considered today.
So right back to the other claim. Round and round we go. :doh
You judge a person by the times they lived in, not be the time we live in now. To do such is inappropriate.
Your position is untenable and only come from some sense of warped bias.
Harry Truman isn't a mass murderer even though his decision cost many folks their lives. It was legal.
Of course you don't. You obviously don't care about facts either.I don't care what your opinion on the matter is.
No he wasn't.He was a mass murderer and a maniac too.
Yes it is.It's warped bias to think a person is a horrible murderer after reading the OP?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?