Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/28/03 04:19 PM, benisveryc00l wrote: LOL most writers dont specify which definition they are using! wtf are u thinking. Ever see a sentence like this? The (1) dog (2) walked (1a) down (2c) the (1) street (4b).

Did thenark do that? No.

Can you really not see that thenark implied the first definition? if you can't.. well thats just sad...

It's not like we can tell it by the tone of his voice or his facial expressions. Obviously your hallucinating if you think you can tell.

i would only be disagreeing with websters dictionary if i agreed with you that he didnt mean the first defintion of invasion, which i clearly dont

It doesnt matter which one he meant because 9/11 was, by definition, an Invasion.

the fact that you change arguements every other post proves that you dont have a fuckin clue what your talking about

What are you talking about?

go ahead call me childish because i swear, you RETARD :)

Your debating style leaves something to be desired.

and to make you happy with the specifying definitions...

your gay (4a)

The fourth definition of gay is "given to social pleasures" unless you mean Websters where there isnt one.

At 3/28/03 04:37 PM, jimsween wrote:
The fourth definition of gay is "given to social pleasures" unless you mean Websters where there isnt one.

Unless your using the internet and not a REAL book.

At 3/28/03 04:37 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 3/28/03 04:19 PM, benisveryc00l wrote: LOL most writers dont specify which definition they are using! wtf are u thinking. Ever see a sentence like this? The (1) dog (2) walked (1a) down (2c) the (1) street (4b).

Did thenark do that? No.

no shit he didn't say that, read the damn post it says people DONT do that

Can you really not see that thenark implied the first definition? if you can't.. well thats just sad...

It's not like we can tell it by the tone of his voice or his facial expressions. Obviously your hallucinating if you think you can tell.

i would only be disagreeing with websters dictionary if i agreed with you that he didnt mean the first defintion of invasion, which i clearly dont

It doesnt matter which one he meant because 9/11 was, by definition, an Invasion.

It wasn't the defintion that he was using, so it was an invasion, but not the kind implied... Next time your happy, think to yourself "im gay!"

im not going to try to teach you elementary school cuz that would take too long

the fact that you change arguements every other post proves that you dont have a fuckin clue what your talking about

What are you talking about?

"I didn't say it was an invasion!"

"it was an invasion! looky here at the definition"

go ahead call me childish because i swear, you RETARD :)

Your debating style leaves something to be desired.

and to make you happy with the specifying definitions...

your gay (4a)

The fourth definition of gay is "given to social pleasures" unless you mean Websters where there isnt one.

go to webster.com

At 3/28/03 04:41 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 3/28/03 04:37 PM, jimsween wrote:
The fourth definition of gay is "given to social pleasures" unless you mean Websters where there isnt one.

Unless your using the internet and not a REAL book.

internet is much more updated... and also speaking of books, how are words' definitions implied in books if you need facial expressions or tones of voice?

At 3/28/03 04:47 PM, benisveryc00l wrote:

internet is much more updated...

I Never said there was anything wrong with the internet

and also speaking of books, how are words' definitions implied in books if you need facial expressions or tones of voice?

By context (what place they are in, the things that have happened recently, and what they are talking about.) The context in thenarks post applies to all the definitions.

At 3/28/03 04:45 PM, benisveryc00l wrote:

no shit he didn't say that, read the damn post it says people DONT do that

So you proved my point.

It wasn't the defintion that he was using, so it was an invasion, but not the kind implied... Next time your happy, think to yourself "im gay!"

Youre namecalling only proves more that you have a baseless debate and cannot support what you say.

"I didn't say it was an invasion!"

"it was an invasion! looky here at the definition"

I DIDNT say it was an invasion but you were still wrong so I proved you wrong twice, It wasnt changing my argument. You have still to prove me wrong on my other argument too.

At 3/28/03 04:56 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 3/28/03 04:47 PM, benisveryc00l wrote:

internet is much more updated...

I Never said there was anything wrong with the internet

and also speaking of books, how are words' definitions implied in books if you need facial expressions or tones of voice?

By context (what place they are in, the things that have happened recently, and what they are talking about.) The context in thenarks post applies to all the definitions.

I dont think any country in the middle east has the resources or manpower to even contemplate The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer the US.

^ makes sense

I dont think any country in the middle east has the resources or manpower to even contemplate A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease the US.

Alright men get your asses over there and cough on them americans!

I dont think any country in the middle east has the resources or manpower to even contemplate An intrusion or encroachment the US.

george bush is sleeping... run in there and make lots and lotsa noice!!!

"the things that have happened recently/what they are talking about"

2. The war has been going strong for 2 days now, but these alleged weapons of mass destruction have yet to rear their ugly heads. And please, dont say he launched scuds, because those are all products of world war II research and development, and have not hurt anyone.

yup were talking about spreading disease or intruding on people, quite obvious thats what hes talking about

you just don't know when youve lost, retard

this is what you sound like

"It was an invasion, as is proven because 9/11 fits the two defintions that thenark didnt use, but just in case i get my head out of my ass and see that it wasnt an invasion (1) then i never said it was!"

At 3/28/03 05:11 PM, benisveryc00l wrote:

I dont think any country in the middle east has the resources or manpower to even contemplate The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer the US.

^ makes sense

I dont think any country in the middle east has the resources or manpower to even contemplate A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease the US.

Alright men get your asses over there and cough on them americans!

Succh as a disease, I would say terrorism is a disease.

I dont think any country in the middle east has the resources or manpower to even contemplate An intrusion or encroachment the US.

george bush is sleeping... run in there and make lots and lotsa noice!!!

It may seem stupid but it still fits the context

you just don't know when youve lost, retard

this is what you sound like

"It was an invasion, as is proven because 9/11 fits the two defintions that thenark didnt use, but just in case i get my head out of my ass and see that it wasnt an invasion (1) then i never said it was!"

You STILL havent done anything to disprove what I said. I never said that 9/11 was an invasion in the first place. I said it was harmfull which makes thenarks invasion point moot. It doesnt have to be an invasion to be harmfull to the USA.

At 3/28/03 05:17 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 3/28/03 05:11 PM, benisveryc00l wrote:

I dont think any country in the middle east has the resources or manpower to even contemplate The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer the US.

^ makes sense

I dont think any country in the middle east has the resources or manpower to even contemplate A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease the US.

Alright men get your asses over there and cough on them americans!

Succh as a disease, I would say terrorism is a disease.

I dont think any country in the middle east has the resources or manpower to even contemplate An intrusion or encroachment the US.

george bush is sleeping... run in there and make lots and lotsa noice!!!

It may seem stupid but it still fits the context

you just don't know when youve lost, retard

this is what you sound like

"It was an invasion, as is proven because 9/11 fits the two defintions that thenark didnt use, but just in case i get my head out of my ass and see that it wasnt an invasion (1) then i never said it was!"

You STILL havent done anything to disprove what I said. I never said that 9/11 was an invasion in the first place. I said it was harmfull which makes thenarks invasion point moot. It doesnt have to be an invasion to be harmfull to the USA.

do you SERIOUSLY believe that that was what thenark meant?

your quite obviously switching your arguements... but ill go with that "I dont think any country in the middle east has the resources or manpower to even contemplate invading the US." it doesnt say HURT it says INVADE and im ASUMMING that you have given up on your retarded definition arguement. your counter was "Yeah they would never do anything to hurt us, Cough911cough"

At 3/28/03 05:26 PM, benisveryc00l wrote:

do you SERIOUSLY believe that that was what thenark meant?

It isnt, I still made his point moot.

your quite obviously switching your arguements... but ill go with that "I dont think any country in the middle east has the resources or manpower to even contemplate invading the US." it doesnt say HURT it says INVADE and im ASUMMING that you have given up on your retarded definition arguement. your counter was "Yeah they would never do anything to hurt us, Cough911cough"

You just proved my point. In his post it says INVADING, a country doesnt need to invade to hurt us.

Check...

you didnt make his statement moot... you said that other countries can hurt us, he said that other countries can't invade us.. hurt doesnt mean invade, what part of this are you having trouble understanding

Ok libral boy, im gonna make this short and sweet.

1. First of all, I dont know how that Arabic soldier got into our military but he should have been checked out first.

2. True, Saddam hasn't launched weapons of mass destruction... yet. If you dont think he has them, you have to be living in a box. What do you think those chemical factories are making? Rubbing alcohol? He's just saving them till we get to Baghdad, then he'll launch them on us. By the way, you know those scud missles you were talking about? They break the 90 mile missle restriction placed on Saddam after the Gulf War. And yes, they can hurt people.

3. Even if you are not in favor of the war, you must respect president bush's decision. You know, they didnt put up with a lot of crap during WWI and WWII.

4. Sure, it's 1.2 trillion dollars that could be used for improving our nation, but think of it this way: if Saddam gained power, that 1.2 could turn to 10 in a couple of years.

5. What do you call running planes into buildings and killing 4000 American citizens? And yes, Al Quida operatives have been found in Iraq.

6. Dude, we do have people working on these situations on other countries, but it's private. We cant just invade North Korea for building nuclear weapons, we'd piss off the Chinese, and a billion conscripts is nothing to laugh at.

At 3/28/03 10:40 PM, benisveryc00l wrote: you didnt make his statement moot... you said that other countries can hurt us, he said that other countries can't invade us.. hurt doesnt mean invade, what part of this are you having trouble understanding

Yes I did, he was trying to prove that because a country cant invade us we dont have anything to worry about and Iraq doesnt pose a threat. That is why I brought up 9/11.

Check and mate..

At 3/29/03 02:38 AM, jimsween wrote:

At 3/28/03 10:40 PM, benisveryc00l wrote: you didnt make his statement moot... you said that other countries can hurt us, he said that other countries can't invade us.. hurt doesnt mean invade, what part of this are you having trouble understanding

Yes I did, he was trying to prove that because a country cant invade us we dont have anything to worry about and Iraq doesnt pose a threat. That is why I brought up 9/11.

Check and mate..

Sorry, NOT check and mate.

Until someone can directly link Iraq with 9/11, I won't believe that Iraq posed an immediate threat.

I agree that America is NOT immune to foreign attacks. Even now.

But the argument with Iraq and 9/11 is silly. There's no link. They're both terrorists, sure. BUT THERE IS NO DIRECT LINK.

So you're basically saying, a Lexus isn't just a Camry with leather. So what if it still has a crappy V6, it costs $10,000 more, so it must be better?

Saddam is just a terrorist, he's involved with all of the same things Bin Laden is, he just has political power as well.

At 3/29/03 02:33 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: So you're basically saying, a Lexus isn't just a Camry with leather. So what if it still has a crappy V6, it costs $10,000 more, so it must be better?

Saddam is just a terrorist, he's involved with all of the same things Bin Laden is, he just has political power as well.

Have I ever said Saddam isn't a terrorist? Nope.

He had nothing to do with the 9/11 stuff. That doesn't make him better or worse.

It's a point I wanted to make, considering that everyone keeps linking the two directly, or whatever. I don't like muddled facts. that's my opinion.

But I do, however, agree that Saddam is a bad, evil man. When I argue that, then you can tell me I'm wrong.

When you say the war is illegal, you are wrong.

At 3/29/03 02:21 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

Until someone can directly link Iraq with 9/11, I won't believe that Iraq posed an immediate threat.

I agree that America is NOT immune to foreign attacks. Even now.

But the argument with Iraq and 9/11 is silly. There's no link. They're both terrorists, sure. BUT THERE IS NO DIRECT LINK.

When thenark wrote it he said ANY country in the midlle east, not just Iraq.

At 3/29/03 03:24 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: When you say the war is illegal, you are wrong.

I don't really want to argue this with you again. Technically, it's illegal. But like a lot of other criminals, they find loop holes.

I am no longer spending my energy on explaining things like this to you. It's worthless. You're too arrogant to see pure logic.

At 3/29/03 06:34 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: I don't really want to argue this with you again. Technically, it's illegal. But like a lot of other criminals, they find loop holes.

I am no longer spending my energy on explaining things like this to you. It's worthless. You're too arrogant to see pure logic.

another sane person given up, i see? dont feel bad about it, god just slipped one day

At 3/29/03 06:34 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:
I don't really want to argue this with you again. Technically, it's illegal. But like a lot of other criminals, they find loop holes.

I am no longer spending my energy on explaining things like this to you. It's worthless. You're too arrogant to see pure logic.

Sure, take the cop out. "You can't see logic!!! Technically I AM right!!!"

I understand why you're doing it, you have no real argument other than your biased opinion based on nothing. "War is illegal because bush is stupid!!!!!" Sorry, that doesn't fly.

At 3/30/03 01:22 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Sure, take the cop out. "You can't see logic!!! Technically I AM right!!!"

technically, you're more stubborn. (fact)
And ignorant. (opinion)

I understand why you're doing it, you have no real argument other than your biased opinion based on nothing. "War is illegal because bush is stupid!!!!!" Sorry, that doesn't fly.

Scratch that. Your ignorance is now fact.

Do you have anything relevant, or just baseless insults?

At 3/30/03 04:04 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Do you have anything relevant, or just baseless insults?

1) You ARE stubborn. Anyone in the politics forum will back that up.

2) I called you ignorant because... Well... You are. Ok, let's change that from Fact back to Opinion. And I have the right to express my opinions here.

On a side note, I'd just like to say that nothing has ever stopped you from making baseless insults here.

Thank you.
If I hurt your feelings, I would also like to express my deepest sorrow over that. Really.

At 3/30/03 04:19 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 3/30/03 04:04 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Do you have anything relevant, or just baseless insults?

1) You ARE stubborn. Anyone in the politics forum will back that up.

And i will. You are as stubbon an a really stubborn mule injected with Stubborn serum.

2) I called you ignorant because... Well... You are. Ok, let's change that from Fact back to Opinion. And I have the right to express my opinions here.

Actually, you could leave that as fact. Nobody would really mind.

Thank you.
If I hurt your feelings, I would also like to express my deepest sorrow over that. Really.

Really? Youre just lying there arent you?

At 3/30/03 04:04 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Do you have anything relevant, or just baseless insults?

I never thought I would hear Nemesis say that...

At 3/28/03 11:16 PM, alejandro1 wrote:

1. First of all, I dont know how that Arabic soldier got into our military but he should have been checked out first.

So you're saying by definition that any and all arabs should be rigorously checked to enter military service?

2. True, Saddam hasn't launched weapons of mass destruction... yet. If you dont think he has them, you have to be living in a box. What do you think those chemical factories are making? Rubbing alcohol? He's just saving them till we get to Baghdad, then he'll launch them on us. By the way, you know those scud missles you were talking about? They break the 90 mile missle restriction placed on Saddam after the Gulf War. And yes, they can hurt people.

If the US had not given Iraq the materials and scientific knowhow to manufacture lethal chemicals, all they would be capable of making today is rubbing alcohol, this is american imperialism coming home to roost.

3. Even if you are not in favor of the war, you must respect president bush's decision. You know, they didnt put up with a lot of crap during WWI and WWII.

No, I spose they didnt, however, WWI And WWII were both started when one sovereign nation invaded another sovereign nation, I wasnt aware that Iraq had invaded anyone recently. And incidentally, the states were the last people to join both WWI and WWII, most of the war was done by the time pearl harbor was bombed.

4. Sure, it's 1.2 trillion dollars that could be used for improving our nation, but think of it this way: if Saddam gained power, that 1.2 could turn to 10 in a couple of years.

That notwithstanding, if any other country in the world arbitrarily invaded others, it would be a war crime. But not for the US. Secondly, maybe if people werent starving and illiterate and poor, they wouldnt feel the need to build chemical weapons or blow themselves up on an israeli bus. What is being spent per day on the war could feed a looooooooot of people.

5. What do you call running planes into buildings and killing 4000 American citizens? And yes, Al Quida operatives have been found in Iraq.

Have you personally seen these operatives? and trust me dude, if your family was starving and sick and unhappy, perhaps you'd do something like fly a plane into a building to feed your family. These are desperate people trying to make themselves heard and bring attention to the global disparity.

6. Dude, we do have people working on these situations on other countries, but it's private. We cant just invade North Korea for building nuclear weapons, we'd piss off the Chinese, and a billion conscripts is nothing to laugh at.

So basically you're just the bully who wont fight anyone who could beat you up?