Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Anyone who can not see the reasoning behind Dresden is not trying.

Your fighting people who have mercelessly bombed civilian targets with no strategic value for the entire war. All the while your held to a different standard, wasting American lives because you don't want to kill the very same people you are fighting. Dresden was a moral attack, plain and simple. We could have won without it, but the thought was that the German people simply were understanding that they would be hurt in this unless they surrendered.

I'll tell you this much, if they would have surrendered, they would have beenmuch better off.

If they can use your past medical history, why not this?

At 2/17/05 04:07 AM, UltraGhost wrote:

At 2/16/05 11:52 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 2/16/05 11:50 PM, UltraGhost wrote: It's not idiotic, but there are differences.

You haven't shown a difference at all. You didn't even show a difference between if the police shoot or if it's a criminal. You just stated your opinion.

Simple, if it's a criminal, and they shot you because they were holding up a bank or something, it's their fault, but if a police man shoots you accidently when you run in front of them while they're shooting someone, they'll probably have to pay, but it's the person who get's shot fault. There's differences.

WHY IS IT THIER FAULT!!!

Did you not see me ask that? What makes the two situations so different that the person at fault is changed? I didn't just ask you to repeat what you just said.

And there are many differences between the coffee and getting shot:

Driving in a car and spilling coffee is different to being in a bank where your shot by someone holding it up, or walking into a line of fire.

ok, I know very little about the court system, but there is a difference between getting shot and spilling coffee.

I KNOW ITS DIFFERENT WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???? I know they are different, but how do the differences cahnge who is at fault?

At 2/17/05 04:04 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote: Whos gives a shit? It's still your own fucking fault you need the treatment and mcdonald's. How thick are you? It doesn't matter how severe your injurys are, if you have no one to blame but yourself for getting them in the first place you have no right to sue anyone, the judge was just biased against mcdonalds, it doesn't mean he was right to hear the case.

How can you say that you have no right to sue anyone when it happens all the time, are you completely seperated from reality?

You can't put bear traps in your yard, it would certainly be the other persons fault if they stepped in it, but your still responsible.

You can't sell poison to a person, it would certainly be the other persons fault if they ate it, but your still responsible.

You can't sell a person a drink that is super hot, it would certainly be the other persons fault if they spilt it, but your still responsible.

Welcome to the real world. I know it's crazy, but for some strange reason the government holds us responsible for our actions.

Come on that's ridiculus, murderers kill people, restruants serve food. Since your such a retard I actually had to say that, now you probably still don't know the difference even though I just stated it, but hey, not my problem

How does this invalidate the comparison? You8 haven't at all proven that. Sure, they are different, but how does that difference make the comparison not work. Can't you get that through your thick head?

All I can say is I'm telling the truth. It's not really an insult if it's true, and the thing about the warning on the cup is definitly true.

But, you have no proof. Funny how that keeps happening with you.

Oh yes and washington state is responcible too for telling people not to touch lava when mount saint helens erupts right? Geez you are getting dumber every time you post. For fuck's sake you're actually saying construction companies are responcible if people keep putting their hands in boiling pitch, how retarded are you to not see how stupid that is? Yeah she did it by accident, but she did a stupid thing that lead to it, mcdonalds didn't do anything that caused it to spill, she did, it's not their fault

Washington state did not put the volcano there, if they had, they would have to take precautions to protect people. Notice how every time you give a comparison, I show how that comparison is invalid?

A construction company is responsible for taking precautions to protect people from thier boiling pitch, thier precautions obviously worked, cause nobody does it. But any precautions that Mcdonalds used, obviously didn't work because there were hundreds of cases of it happening, yet Mcdonalds did nothing.

You keep repeating the same crap, but you give no argument to back it up. I already admitted it was her fault the cup spilt, that is irrellevent, SHE WASN'T SUEING BECAUSE HER COFFEE SPILT!

No but the judge did.

The Judge only decides the jury pool. The lawyers decide to the jurors. I shouldn't have expected you to know anything about law, sorrry.

I made it after your claim that it wasn't.

No, you were the first to claim it was appealed.

And on top of that, you can't prove something did happen, it would require listing every thing that didn't happen.

Or, you could just so some evidence of it happening. Moron.

When someone accuses you of something and you say, "because blah blah blah" that's admitting it. You don't have to say, "yes I did it" to confirm it.

Read the sentence. It's not that hard, you just sound the words out and then your brain does the rest of the work. In time you will understand.

Oh, an

PROVE THAT THE CASE WASN'T APPEALED

Come on, do it, you will very soon realize that it was.

Ok fuckhead, I hope your really fucking embarrassed for being such a moron. I hoped that you would at least have some amount of intellegence but apperantly that isn't true. Here is my proof.

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

The case was settled after the trail to prevent appeals.

If you do something to yourself then actually think it's someone else's fault you ARE a moron.

Someone else's fault if the thing you spill is hazardous. 180 degree liquid is hazardous, and would kill you if you drank it, furthermore, it is dangerous to be touched. It's the equivilent of Mcdonalds selling sulfuric acid and calling it sulfur juice. It's wreckless, thats why they lost.

Also, since when did accidentally spilling something make you a moron? You cannot say you haven't spilt something.

At 2/17/05 12:23 AM, silencedintruder wrote: Again why should I pay for what NORTH AMERICA did? I am not related to the people who did that and I didnt help them, therefore why should I have to pay for their crimes. How about we all pay jews and homos for what the nazis did?

Uhh, it was Europe that commited the genocide. The spanish conquistadors and whatnot.

At 2/17/05 12:55 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote: So you blindly accept everything the law says as absolutly correct. Well that's fuckwitted but it's your problem. Of course mcdobalds wouldn't bother selling molten steel though.

Where did I say that? All I said is that your gripe about this being a stupid lawsuit is wrong, your gripe is with the law, this has nothing to do with a court problem.

It's hot even if it's not excessively hot. Either way common sense says you don't spill it on yourself, you lose.

Except one way, you need skin grafts and whirlpool treatment, the other, well you may not need anything.

Yes they do, even retards know that you can't compare murderers to restraunts in any way shape or form.

As I thought, you cannot prove it, so you resort to insults. According to you, the law in itself is retarded, because it hold everyone to the same standards, if anything, it holds murderers to a lesser standard.

-

I bet you do, and aren't just lying.

Nope. I say what I believe. I don't hust argue to be right like you do.

Well apperantly you just argue to look like a fool then. This is the third point you haven't responded too. Well, you did, just with insults.

They have a supervisor in the truck to compensate for the possibility of retarded peole such as yourself sticking their hands in it, it really isn't their fault. Come on I don't give a shit how many people are near it anyone with an IQ above 2 knows better than to stick their hands in boiling pitch. Are you retarded? Seriously?

Just like everybody knows not to..... drink coffee? Your point doesn't apply. She did it by mistake, just as a mistake is bound to happen if you put a a pitch near people. A mistake is bound to happen if you give people 180 degree coffee. It was wreckless, espescially considering they had 700 cases of it happening before.

T^he point is it happens and probably happened in this case

Yeah, I really bet Mcdonalds allowed 12 stupid jurors onto the stand,

You made a claim it wasn't. Prove it/

I made it after your claim that it was. And on top of that, you can't prove something didn't happen, it would require listing every thing that did happen.

Yes you did. When I said you made something up, you said, " because blah blah blah" so although you lack any intellect as to realise it, you did admit it.

Damn I make more sense when drunk than you do when sober. Sucks to be you.

Maybe you should have read the blah blah blah then, because I didn't admit that.

Oh, and.

PROVE THAT THE CASE WAS APPEALED

Come on, do it, you will very soon realize that it wasn't.

What makes you think it ever belonged to them in the first place?

At 2/16/05 11:59 PM, aingery_faic wrote: They taught you the European's part in the massacre in your AMERICAN history class.

Well that's an oxymoron if I ever read one.

It wasn't American history. It was Social Studies.

At 2/16/05 11:28 PM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote: Oh but comparing mcdonalds to a murderer isn't right? Moron.

How about instead of insults, you give a rebuttal.

If it's sold as molten steel then people should know better than to buy it unless they have the proper equipment and need it.

Well the law says differently. So your gripe is with the law, not the court system.

No it isn't, they did everything they could except have an employee escort go in the car with her and keep telling her, "don't do that, it's hot". It's sold hot, with warning labels that it's hot and lids to keep it from spilling period. They did the responcible thing, she did not. That's not their fault

Everything they could would have been lowering the temperature. You lose.

It's kind of obvious the differences between someone shooting a gun at someone and a fast food place, do I really have to tell you for you to get it. I know you're stupid but I really didn't think you were that stupid.

The situations are different, but the differences do not make the analogy incorrect. Analogy's have to contain different situations. Prove my comparison is idiot, what differences make it invalid and why.

Nope, I remember quite clearly.

I bet you do, and aren't just lying. Because it's not like you have lied several times about this already.

I don't give a shit if they had 100,000. You have to be really, really stupid to walk past sevrel shouting construction workers and signs and stick your hand in boiling black pitch, period. It doesn't matter how many people do it just the common sense alone should make them not responcible by default. But they have signs and worker who will tell them not to as well.

You have to be really really stupid to put a boiling black pitch around alot of people, period. The argument was never that she was partially at fault, the docked her claim 20% because of that, the argument was that Mcdonalds was also at fault.

It was also the case for OJ's trial

And every other trial with a verdict you disagree with, I bet.

No I'm not. Show me proof you're right.

You made the claim it was appealed. Prove it.

Case closed. You admitted you make stufff up. You're probably making everything up.

I never admitted that, I said sure so you could go and find it for yourself.

Give a source that the case was appealed. You said it was, now prove it.

Do I need to state it more clearly?

PROVE THAT THE CASE WAS APPEALED

At 2/16/05 11:50 PM, UltraGhost wrote: It's not idiotic, but there are differences.

You haven't shown a difference at all. You didn't even show a difference between if the police shoot or if it's a criminal. You just stated your opinion.

Justice..... your on skunks side aren't you? This is like one of those set up things.

Everyone knows these things already happened.

At 2/16/05 11:09 PM, aingery_faic wrote: North, or South for that matter, American history doesn't begin until Columbus and colonialization, there is a war between Native Americans and the colonizing powers and the colonies win.

That's it.

They also don't teach about the napolianic war, or anything else involving europe for that matter. Because it's AMERICAN history.

But, they do teach about the European slaughter of the indians, 7th grade for me I believe. The spanish conquistadors and all that.

At 2/16/05 10:52 PM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote: Well then molten steel is even more irresponcibly hot(way more) and so steel mills shouldn't operate.

You sign a contract with a steel mill. That analogy is horrible on so many levels. But using your logic Mcdonalds could sell molten steel and not be held responsible. What do you have to say to that?

Show me where I said it's Mcdonalds fault she spilled it. Nowhere. If you have to lie to make a point you don't have much of a point.

You just admitted it's not their fault yet you still think she should get a settlement for doing something that you admit is her own damn fault. Ironic, not to mention idiotic. But at least you proved my case.

Wow, talk about selective hearing. I admitted its not thier fault she spilt it, it is thier fault she was burnt. Learn to read.

So if I'm shooting a gun and you accidentally walk into the line of fire I shouldn't be held responsible. Who is unreasonable again?

Again with the idiotic comparisons, you obviously didn't read this so let me post it again:\

Do you get it now sir

Saying, "Thats dumb" isn't a rebuttal. Prove that my comparision is idiotic.

So 12 years ago, when you were 9, you remember seeing 'HOT' on the coffee cups. Right.

YES, my mom drank it all the time. I remember damn well what their coffee cups looked like.

And your not just mistaking them for the cups in the years after that, exactly.

If you can't hold mcdonalds to the same standards you hold a muderer to then your pretty pathetic.

Yes let's all treat mcdonalds like the homicidle killer it is, seriously do you not see what a retard that makes you look like?

What? It's harder to convict a person of homocide than anything. Do you even know anything about the courts?

I'm going to suee road builders next time I touch hot pitch because it melts my skin off, I mean they have "caution hot" signs all around it and it's stupid of me stick my hand in it, but hey, it melts my skin off, fuck the rest of that shit it's irresponcibly hot after all.

If they had hundreds of cases of people burning themselves on it, and the other road builders used safer ones, and the pitch was in an area where you were expected to be doing things (your expected to drink the coffee). Then yes they are completely responsible.

First of all, it wasn't just a judge, it was a jury of 12.

Okay it's 12 morons instead of one, big deal. I doubt they were impartial if they lacked that much common sense. The judge probably didn't want an impartial jury, he wanted like minded fuckwits(kind of like judge yeto of OJ simpson's trial).

Okay, so far your argument is. They're all stupid, and the judge is biased.

Second, it was never overturned. You're just making that up.

Nope

Yeah, you are. Show me some proof if your not.

And third, appeals were denied, which means it was more than just some judge.

They were never denied. You're just making that up.

Because I wan't you to actually find the facts about the case for yourself, you being the liar and all, I will say ok. Now prove to me that the case was appealed.

At 2/16/05 10:54 PM, aingery_faic wrote: Really? Most of the people that posted in here think that the native's genocide is all one big joke

People don't know jack shit about their own history.

So you read a book by Dee Brown and suddenly your a Rhodes Scholar.

Just because they have a different sense of humor than you, doesn't mean they don't recognize it as an atrocity. Not everyone likes to be a pissant and whine about everything.

We'll just get better at figuring out who is different.

At 2/16/05 10:36 PM, aingery_faic wrote: 75% of the native population was massacred by North American settlers.

The least they could do is fucking admit it's a part of history and recognize the atrocity for what it is.

Apperantly, the least they could do is nothing. Who would have thought.

Why is it everything you say seems like it made more sense 30 years ago. Everyone knows it was bad to kill indians.

At 2/16/05 10:29 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 2/16/05 10:26 PM, Jimsween wrote: Theres no point in playing devil's advocate if your going to give an argument that is unsupportable.

I think it's more about mockery and parody than DAG

Or maybe they had a meeting at the dag forum where they said, "Hey we don't do that thing where we make n00b traps anymore".

At 2/16/05 10:14 PM, red_skunk wrote: How are the white immigrants doing, sween?

Bad? I dunno I thought I already implied the answer was good.

At 2/16/05 10:26 PM, TheShrike wrote: I'd guess that implying that conservatives are all for coercion and exploitation probably helps them hate you.

Booyah grandma.

Theres no point in playing devil's advocate if your going to give an argument that is unsupportable.

At 2/16/05 12:53 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote: So despite the fact the it's totally her fault she spilled it on herself and she was being extremely stupid mcdonalds still has to pay?idiot

Mcdonalds is partially responsible for her injury because they make thier coffee irresponibly hot, how many times do I have to say that before it sticks?

You: It's mcdonalds' fault she spilled it

Me: No it isn't <proof>

You: Yeah well the temperature, it's mcdonalds' fault

There's no reasoning with you.

Show me where I said it's Mcdonalds fault she spilled it. Nowhere. If you have to lie to make a point you don't have much of a point.

The person who spills their drink, because it's their own fucking fault. Unless mcdonalds somehow reaches it's hand over and pours it in their laps itself.

So if I'm shooting a gun and you accidentally walk into the line of fire I shouldn't be held responsible. Who is unreasonable again?

Yeah it actually did, have you even seen their coffee cups? Well I have, it did say hot on them.

So 12 years ago, when you were 9, you remember seeing 'HOT' on the coffee cups. Right.

My gosh are you that thick? You even quoted where you said "She wasn't sticking it between her legs, der" right above you saying, "I never said she didn't stick in in between her legs." Are you deliberately being stupid for the sake of it?

Read the rest of the sentence, I was clearly saying that it didn't spill when she was putting it between her legs. Don't blame me for your reading comprehension problems.

Comparing coffee that is 20-30 degrees too hot to shooting and killing a person is idiotic and you know it.

If you can't hold mcdonalds to the same standards you hold a muderer to then your pretty pathetic.

If mcdonlads attempts to spill it on them and they walk right into it then you'll have a point. Since they're not doing anything like that and the only ones who have a hand in them spilling coffee on themselves are in fact, themselves it's a totally illogical comparison altogether.

She didn't sue mcdonalds because she got coffee spilt on her, she sued them because her skin melted when she spilt the coffee. The comparison is completely valid.

Not as much of a fuckwit as someone who blindly believes anything a judge and an article says. Just because some judge decided he wanted to rule in her favor doesn't mean he was right to do so, but since you want to go by that logic, you should know that the ruling got overturned.

First of all, it wasn't just a judge, it was a jury of 12.

Second, it was never overturned. You're just making that up.

And third, appeals were denied, which means it was more than just some judge.

So wheres your proof that you keep mentioning?

I doubt slavery is the reason African Americans are poor, immigrants came to America with no money too.

Whe you think about it, integration is what made African Americans poor. Harlem wasn't a "ghetto" until whites started moving there and buying up African American businesses. Many African-Americans weren't effected by the depression much because the communities they lived in were so segregated that they had the effect of a huge tarrif.

I dunno, just a thought, but reperations are stupid, espescially those that give money to people not effected.

I like my TV mindless and pointless thank you very much.

At 2/16/05 05:22 PM, NotYouZ wrote: It satisfies the bloodlust of the victims.

Fucking awesome.

At 2/9/05 09:31 PM, Tombulgius wrote: But hate crimes and rapes merit punishment. Not necessarily death, but punishment.

Why? What does punishment do?

Why is this topic still going...

At 2/15/05 07:16 PM, TheShrike wrote: It's not quite that simple. China, Japan, and S.Korea don't want war, particularly nuclear war. Even if N.Korea made a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the U.S., I doubt a nuclear counter-strike would take place. N.Korea is a relatively small country, surrounded by states who are allied with the U.S.
Fallout wouldn't be restricted to N.Korea, it would be shared amongst many pacific nations.

This is why N.Korea having nukes is such a big deal.

Well, to be honest shrike, and this ins't just pissant bragging, but we could make the entire country of North Korea rubble WITHOUT nukes. It's a brave new world, in recent years (even during vietnam) we have limited ourselves to strategic attacks, which generally are more contained, but if we wanted to copy the effect of a nuke, it wouldn't be too hard.

Maybe even, in a day, the most populated areas.

Oh wow, piss poor countries uniting.

I would say, if anything, Syria uniting with Iran would be beneficial to us. If you want to invade Iran, then you would have no quarrels with invading Syria.

I could go on to explain why it would be no tacticle difficulty to invade a country like Syria or even Iran, but I would waste time when I could simply say, "They're poor and.... well poor."

At 2/15/05 11:28 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Considering charities are starting to give money back. Hey, here's a novel idea - GIVE IT TO A COUNTRY THAT ISN'T A TOURIST HAVEN FOR WESTERNERS THAT NEEDS IT.

Sudan is a good start...

That would be all well and good if many people shared your opinion. Many don't, when they give money, they want it to go to what they gave it for. Including countries.

And again, I don't see the logic in the argument that we should just throw money at everything.