Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/18/03 07:28 PM, punk_shithead wrote: Feel free to prove us wrong with actual facts instead of sarcastic assumptions. (i.e. a list similar to the one introduced in the thread)

What are you talking about? No one is trying to prove anything, the US has voted against many UN propositions, and so have all other member nations - it's not something one can debate.

At 12/18/03 09:19 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: What are you talking about? No one is trying to prove anything, the US has voted against many UN propositions, and so have all other member nations - it's not something one can debate.

Quit using logic. It only confuses them.

At 12/18/03 09:19 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: What are you talking about? No one is trying to prove anything, the US has voted against many UN propositions, and so have all other member nations - it's not something one can debate.

Really? Then why is the US almost always the only nation to vote against humanitarian resolutions? Did you even look at the resolutions and the "opposed" voting outcome? :\

At 12/18/03 10:52 PM, punk_shithead wrote: Really? Then why is the US almost always the only nation to vote against humanitarian resolutions? Did you even look at the resolutions and the "opposed" voting outcome? :\

There's never been a UN resolution the US has opposed unilaterally. You should take your political knowledge from credible news sources, not band members who never finished high school.

At 12/18/03 11:11 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: There's never been a UN resolution the US has opposed unilaterally. You should take your political knowledge from credible news sources, not band members who never finished high school.

W I L L I A M B L U M
http://www.speakersandartists.org/People/WilliamBlum.html

By the way, they don't usually teach international politics in high schools so i fail to see what failing to finish high school has to do with anything.

What band are you talking about anyways?

At 12/18/03 11:11 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:

There's never been a UN resolution the US has opposed unilaterally. You should take your political knowledge from credible news sources, not band members who never finished high school.

It night not be always unilateral, but the vast majority of the time the US is the only 1st world country to go against them. the US's only support on this issues is some third world countries that are democracies

So I'm assuming every other UN nation has approved every UN resolution?

That is completely irrelevant. To be leader, or even part of the "free world" you have to support human rights and freedoms......which the US hasn't done. It is completely irrelevant if other countries have done it as well. It doesn't stop the US having said one thing and done another.

You don't know what you're talking about, you're as ill-informed as ever.

I don't know why I even bother responding to you. You obviously have no real thoughts on the subject and can only ring up red herrings as responses.

At 12/19/03 09:59 AM, Slizor wrote: That is completely irrelevant. To be leader, or even part of the "free world" you have to support human rights and freedoms......which the US hasn't done.

You're right, this would explain US action in Somalia and the Balkans. I guess those were a hypocritical wars for oil too, but the evil republicans hid it really well that time.

You have some gripe with america because you don't have any legitimate political or historical knowledge, you're a complete moron, and anything further said will be ignored.

At 12/17/03 10:52 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 12/17/03 08:27 PM, punk_shithead wrote:

You honestly expect people to read through all that garbage? Sum it up already. If you can't organize your thoughts, why should anyone listen to you?

Have you ever seen/been at/taken part in a criminal trial? You don't just "sum up" evidence, you have to go through each and every item to reach a verdict.

OK, so that doesn't work in Crazyland, naturally. How? Remember Bush's reasoning for incarcerating people in Guantanamo without trial et al? Quote: "These are bad guys." You couldn't do thisunder UK law, as they'd be released, without charge or bail, due to Perverting The Course Of Justice.

It happened here a couple of weeks ago when dawn raids arrested several people accused of being Middle Eastern in Gloucester - a place that needs nuking anyway - and our belovedly draconian Home Secretary said something similar about one detainee, and off he was within six hours. So why not in Guantanamo - the same legal proceedure stands in the US, with a desperate clinging to a document that is outdated by several centuries, with most of the Ammendments on it forgotten.

Actually, that's a new question I'm setting you, as you can't tell me where the WMD are, and never can: name every single Ammendment to the US Constitution.

At 12/19/03 10:38 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: You're right, this would explain US action in Somalia and the Balkans. I guess those were a hypocritical wars for oil too, but the evil republicans hid it really well that time.

Yes well that's only two humanitarian interventions. And would you care to explain the decision of the US to do nothing to help the population of Rwanda when it underwant a civil war/genocide with a rate of 8 000 people dying each day?

You have some gripe with america because you don't have any legitimate political or historical knowledge, you're a complete moron, and anything further said will be ignored.

Well you ignored pretty much anything to begin with so you amy as well continue your flaming.

You're right, this would explain US action in Somalia and the

Balkans.

Again a red herring. US action in Somalia and the Balkans does not discount the US's anti-human rights line elsewhere.

It is indeed questionable whether US involvement was to support Human Rights or not.

You have some gripe with america because you don't have any legitimate political or historical knowledge

You don't have some gripe with America because you discount anything which disagree with your sheeple views as ilegitimate.

Well baa sheep. Fucking baa.

How many times do I have to explain this to you punk. THE PEOPLE RUNNING THE COUNTRY OBVIOUSLY KNOW MORE THAN YOU!!!!

Chances are, if they make a decision that you feel is stupid (espescially a humanitarian one), they didn't just do it for kicks, or to strengthen thier "iron fist" over the world. And since I know if I ask you to read my post again and reply to it, you will only prented you read it and come up with a debate that has nothing to do with my post, I will state it yet again. Bills are not about just one thing, even UN resolutions have tiny clauses that all could be controversial, until you have read over the proposal with a find toothed comb and found nothing that could possibly be bad then you can't go saying the US is anti-freedom. I've seen more than one bill in the senate that was designed to look good, but was really crap (patriot act for example).

At 12/19/03 11:15 AM, D2KVirus wrote: stuff

Yay, yet another example od D2k going on and on and on and on and on about something that could have easily been stated in a few words. If I felt the point being made in that post actuall existed or was worth my time to find I would rebutt to it, but I think your doing a better job at proving your arguments baseless than I am just by posting them.

At 12/19/03 11:15 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Have you ever seen/been at/taken part in a criminal trial? You don't just "sum up" evidence, you have to go through each and every item to reach a verdict.

And actually, you do, at the beginning and end of the trial.

At 12/19/03 06:38 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 12/19/03 11:15 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Have you ever seen/been at/taken part in a criminal trial? You don't just "sum up" evidence, you have to go through each and every item to reach a verdict.

And actually, you do, at the beginning and end of the trial.

Yay, yet another example of Jimswhine going on and on and on and on and on about something that could have easily been stated in a few words. If I felt the point being made in that post actuall existed or was worth my time to find I would rebutt to it, but I think your doing a better job at proving your arguments baseless than I am just by posting them.

Nothing to do with the fact that maybe, just maybe, you can't say anything worthwhile, but just have to see your name thrown in, eh? I'll be cashing those $0.02...

At 12/20/03 10:06 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Nothing to do with the fact that maybe, just maybe, you can't say anything worthwhile, but just have to see your name thrown in, eh? I'll be cashing those $0.02...

Hmm... I've heard this debate style before.. what was it again... oh yeah, "I know you are but what am I?".

Pathetic D2k, just sad, every time sombody confronts you with the truth you avoid it by changing the topic.

You were better off making rant posts that maxed out the post size limit and had nothing to do with the argument at all.

At 12/19/03 06:27 PM, Jimsween wrote: How many times do I have to explain this to you punk. THE PEOPLE RUNNING THE COUNTRY OBVIOUSLY KNOW MORE THAN YOU!!!!
Chances are, if they make a decision that you feel is stupid (espescially a humanitarian one), they didn't just do it for kicks, or to strengthen thier "iron fist" over the world.

Do you even have the slightest shred of proof in regards to this are you going to post some more indoctrinatins propaganda? You say that the people running the country abviously know more than us yet you have no proof of this or that that those hundreds of resolutions are somehow like the Patriot Act, even though the patriot act has nothing to do with humanitarian issues?

At 12/17/03 11:16 PM, punk_shithead wrote: Remind me to get you something extra special for christmas this year.

heh, just keep doin' what ya doin' mate!

...

At 12/18/03 07:51 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote: You make it sound like a bad thing. ..we're tired of being pigeonholed as the only country to have ever used a nuke in war. We just don't want that nuke used on us.

yes Funk, i make it sound like a bad thing becuase the USA is monopolizing chaos (not letting anyone move in on their territory) which is not unexpected, but it pains us when we're also sold on the idea that they'll fix everything that goes wrong with the world, only we notice they seem to have an absolute monopoly on the fixing part too! (..see Iraqi reconstruction contracts for America and it's Allies threads)

Before we were told that anti-missile systems (Star-Wars) would save America from attack, and billions has been spent towards that end militarily. But now we're told that pre-emptive attacks on so called rouge nations is the only way to safe-guard American soil, and billions more is being spent militarily towards that end..

do you see the pattern?

the types of threats might have changed, but the logic that military solutions work best for all problems remains the same.

At 12/20/03 04:06 PM, punk_shithead wrote:

At 12/19/03 06:27 PM, Jimsween wrote: How many times do I have to explain this to you punk. THE PEOPLE RUNNING THE COUNTRY OBVIOUSLY KNOW MORE THAN YOU!!!!
Chances are, if they make a decision that you feel is stupid (espescially a humanitarian one), they didn't just do it for kicks, or to strengthen thier "iron fist" over the world.

Do you even have the slightest shred of proof in regards to this are you going to post some more indoctrinatins propaganda?

Since you are the one claiming they are capable of making moronic deciscions for no reason, YOU are the one who has to prove or disprove thier intellegence. And I do have proof, how many times have you talked to another world leader? How many people do you have calculating the effect a certain environmental law would have on your economy? How many millions do you give to third world countries? How many reconnisiance satellites do you have control of? Well, no doubt your answer to all of these is less than the people who decided to vote on those resolutions.

You say that the people running the country abviously know more than us yet you have no proof of this or that that those hundreds of resolutions are somehow like the Patriot Act, even though the patriot act has nothing to do with humanitarian issues?

Yet again you show your complete lack of reading comprehension. Did a fluffy bunny hop by and distract you from actually reading my post? The patriot act example was to show you that all bills/resolutions have tiny little clauses in them that all make a big difference. Just like how there is a little clause in the patriot act that allows police to hold you for 72 hours without a reason, there is a good chance there were many clauses in the long list of resolutions you just showed.

Jim, your only arguments are "Oh they must have a good reason for voting against humanitarian resolutions" and "Maybe all those resolutions are like the patriot act".

You have no proof of any of those.

At 12/21/03 06:09 PM, punk_shithead wrote: Jim, your only arguments are "Oh they must have a good reason for voting against humanitarian resolutions" and "Maybe all those resolutions are like the patriot act".

You have no proof of any of those.

Punk, if you choose to be ignorant and not read the post, or come up with a debate to what I wrote, then that is your deciscion, and no matter how much I try to get you to not be ignorant, you will continue.

But anyone reading this can clearly see why your argument against mine is baseless, and that you cannot find sources that DISPROVE what I said. After all, YOU are the one making the outrageous claim that every one of these proves America is Anti-Freedom, so the burden of proof falls upon you.

You asked why the US voted against these, and since there is no possible way to read thier mind I gave you an example, you then asked how voting against any of these resolutions could be logical, and I have you more than one example, and now you are complaining that my examples are not what happened.

I hope this made you realize how moronic you are acting.

In other words, you gave me an answer that was hypothetical situations and assumptions.

Jim you could've answered that the voting outcomes of the us in those resolutions was created by outerspace mind-controlling zombies and would you expect me to prove to you that they don't? No it's up to you to prove your own claims, I proved mine with facts. If we are to have any kind of rational, mature and intelligent debate you'll have to prove to me that what you're saying isn't something that you just made up.

You asked why the US voted against these, and since there is no possible way to read thier mind I gave you an example, you then asked how voting against any of these resolutions could be logical, and I have you more than one example, and now you are complaining that my examples are not what happened.

Hey, how about next time you try reading my post.

You asked why the US voted against these, and since there is no possible way to read thier mind I gave you an example, you then asked how voting against any of these resolutions could be logical, and I have you more than one example, and now you are complaining that my examples are not what happened.

Hey, how about next time you try reading my post.

Wow... slowest double post ever....

OK JIm, you say that the people running the government obviously know more than we do. Well if the reason they voted against a UN resolution was because it wasn't right, some little mistake that made it a bad idea. So you are saying that the US is the only country to consistantly find this one little clause in it that justifies closing it down. So no other country reads these things over with a fine-tooth comb? Wow, all of the other governments must be pretty stupid then if they arent reading these things as well as they should before voting. We should all thank the US for saving us from these oppressive or worng resolutions. Lets not forget how they saved us from not having to worry about landmines. Man, imangine how horrible it would be in a world without landmines. Or how about one without nukes? Or cutting down on smog?

At 12/20/03 12:29 PM, Jimsween wrote:
Hmm... I've heard this debate style before.. what was it again... oh yeah, "I know you are but what am I?".

"Wah wah wah."

Pathetic D2k, just sad, every time sombody confronts you with the truth you avoid it by changing the topic.

What the fucking hell are you talking about, Sween? (Oh yes, subtlty is well and truly off the menu today) - you come steaming in with your usual pile of shit to try and make yourself feel better, yet can't handle it when people, rightly, tell you to fuck off.

I made a point, and you have to try and change the subject, because it doesn't fit with your worldview. It still stands, by the way - the detainees at Guantanamo should be let off for Bush Perverting The Course Of Justice - come on, make up something to counter that with. Try that trust CIA website that said there was oil in the Congo - which nobody told...well, every oil company on the planet.

You were better off making rant posts that maxed out the post size limit and had nothing to do with the argument at all.

Excuse me, but are you making it easy for me to make you look like a little bitch for my Christmas present? If so - THANKS!

When will you learn - Sween brand fertiliser just ain't the top selling brand.

At 12/22/03 10:33 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 12/20/03 12:29 PM, Jimsween wrote:
Hmm... I've heard this debate style before.. what was it again... oh yeah, "I know you are but what am I?".

"Wah wah wah."

No rebuttal? Just as I thought...

Pathetic D2k, just sad, every time sombody confronts you with the truth you avoid it by changing the topic.

What the fucking hell are you talking about, Sween? (Oh yes, subtlty is well and truly off the menu today) - you come steaming in with your usual pile of shit to try and make yourself feel better, yet can't handle it when people, rightly, tell you to fuck off.

I made a point, and you have to try and change the subject, because it doesn't fit with your worldview. It still stands, by the way - the detainees at Guantanamo should be let off for Bush Perverting The Course Of Justice - come on, make up something to counter that with. Try that trust CIA website that said there was oil in the Congo - which nobody told...well, every oil company on the planet.

You still don't get it, you took something that could have been said in 5 words, and turned it into 4 paragraphs. Apperantly you just can't understand the concept of summarizing.

You were better off making rant posts that maxed out the post size limit and had nothing to do with the argument at all.

Excuse me, but are you making it easy for me to make you look like a little bitch for my Christmas present? If so - THANKS!

When will you learn - Sween brand fertiliser just ain't the top selling brand.

If only your insults didn't lack humor.

So Jim, iron fist or not?

At 12/24/03 06:10 PM, 0_OkthxbyeO_0 wrote: So Jim, iron fist or not?

I fail to see what's so bad with iron fists. It's the natural result of an extremely strong government. If you want your government to be powerful enough to help people, get out your forge, because it's time to make an iron fisted regime.

I personally think America is doing a bad job raising it's children, and has been for a long time. This degeneration is causing more and more power to fall into the hands of dumber and dumber people. An ironfisted system of indoctrination could solve this problem, but strangely everyone's against it, despite it being our only hope.

Discipline is not evil.