Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/9/04 08:27 PM, CrassClock wrote:

The UN isn't the White House.
Koffi Annan isn't George Bush.
The Patriot Act isn't a UN resolution.

Thats such a piss ass argument. I can't believe you can spew that shit without wanting to kill yourself.

The fact is these titles were given by a man who is trying to convince people that the resolutions are good. The titles do not completely describe the resolutions, so you cannot form an logical opinion about them based on just the title.

This is by far a new low for you punk, I am disgusted that you would stoop to something so pathetic.

At 5/9/04 08:34 PM, Jimsween wrote: Thats such a piss ass argument. I can't believe you can spew that shit without wanting to kill yourself.

I dont get what the hell you are talking about. The UN has NOTHING to do with the USA. Its an orgonisation that brings many powerful nations together and its made to stop things like world war and the holocaust from hapenning. It obviously didnt work against bush though. Other nations were supposed to step in and forcefully stop the USA but they would be considered terrorists too if they did. Saying that the UN isnt the USA isnt piss and pathetic.

At 5/9/04 08:51 PM, Adun wrote:

I dont get what the hell you are talking about. The UN has NOTHING to do with the USA. Its an orgonisation that brings many powerful nations together and its made to stop things like world war and the holocaust from hapenning. It obviously didnt work against bush though. Other nations were supposed to step in and forcefully stop the USA but they would be considered terrorists too if they did. Saying that the UN isnt the USA isnt piss and pathetic.

Are you retarded? I used to patriot act as an example to show you that a title of something doesn't neccesarily make it good, if you can't recognize a simple correlation like that you should be shot so you can't spread your DNA.

Do I have to be a broken record and repeat the phrase "Don't judge a book by its cover." It's not that hard to understand, you would have to be incredibly blinded by rhetoric to not understand this.

The fact is these titles were given by a man who is trying to convince people that the resolutions are good. The titles do not completely describe the resolutions, so you cannot form an logical opinion about them based on just the title.

What about the fact that the majority of the UN agree? We would be forced to conclude that it is only the US with noble intentions and everyone else are just bastards. Hmmmm.

At 5/10/04 10:07 AM, Slizor wrote:

What about the fact that the majority of the UN agree? We would be forced to conclude that it is only the US with noble intentions and everyone else are just bastards. Hmmmm.

Yes.. That absolutely must be the case. I just knew that we Canadians were just fascist neo-nazis afterall.

At 5/10/04 10:07 AM, Slizor wrote:

What about the fact that the majority of the UN agree? We would be forced to conclude that it is only the US with noble intentions and everyone else are just bastards. Hmmmm.

Majority meaning... the few rich European countries who along with the US could easily bribe another nation to vote yes? Besides, its still irrelevent until he can produce the text of the resolution, the UN keeps a detailed list, why cant he produce any of them?

At 5/12/04 06:44 PM, Jimsween wrote: the UN keeps a detailed list, why cant he produce any of them?

Because their records aren't kept online

and that's way besides the point.

You seriously believe that it's the world that's always voting wrong?

At 5/12/04 07:17 PM, CrassClock wrote:

At 5/12/04 06:44 PM, Jimsween wrote: the UN keeps a detailed list, why cant he produce any of them?

Because their records aren't kept online

Yes they are.

and that's way besides the point.

You seriously believe that it's the world that's always voting wrong?

Who said the world was? You have no proof of that, you can't even produce the resolutions much less the voting results. All of these were voted on only by a few select countries, and up until recently only three of those (most of the time)were democratic, now russia is too. And of the democratic ones, the US has more people electing the government than all of the democratic ones combined.

So really punk, whats your backing here? A list of resolution titles given by some guy trying to make the US bad. If this type of argument was given pro-US, the person would have been ridiculed by the entire forum. How about you try giving evidence to your claim, instead of just relying on the stupidity of n00bs to get people to believe your argument.

At 5/12/04 07:32 PM, Jimsween wrote: Yes they are.

...

No?

Who said the world was? etc.

Obviously if it's always the US and Israel against the rest of the General Assembly, either one of them has to be right and the other wrong.

At 5/12/04 08:19 PM, CrassClock wrote:

At 5/12/04 07:32 PM, Jimsween wrote: Yes they are.

...

No?

Where do you think I got them when I was debating you about this the first time?

Who said the world was? etc.

Obviously if it's always the US and Israel against the rest of the General Assembly, either one of them has to be right and the other wrong.

Not neccesarily the general assembly, the ones on your link all looked like security council resolutions. And again, you have given to backing for the "US and Israel against the rest of the General Assembly" statement. Quit making stuff up and start proving the things you say.

At 5/12/04 08:31 PM, Jimsween wrote: Where do you think I got them when I was debating you about this the first time?

link?

Not neccesarily the general assembly, the ones on your link all looked like security council resolutions. And again, you have given to backing for the "US and Israel against the rest of the General Assembly" statement. Quit making stuff up and start proving the things you say.

1978-1981: All voting in the General Assembly examined; only those resolutions for which the US cast a solitary "no" vote or were joined by one or two other nations are listed.
1982-1983: All voting in the General Assembly examined; only those resolutions for which the US cast a solitary "no" vote are listed.
1984-1987: Only a portion of the General Assembly resolutions are examined, and a sample has been selected, primarily for diversity.
The number of abstentions is not shown. There were many resolutions where Israel cast a solitary "no" vote and the US was the sole abstainer.
Voting on resolutions of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council are not included here, but these votes show a very similar pattern. In the Council -- where its solitary "no" vote is enough to defeat a measure -- the United States is free to play its role of international school bully.
We were all also taught that the Communists had no respect for world opinion.
"... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind ..."
The Declaration of Independence