Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

jumbling up your words is in no way a sign of intelligence... or lack thereof.

I know some people who are dumber than pigshit that can speak clearly, and i know some intelligent people who stutter, I even know a genius who can't speak at all! yes,Steven Hawking, he has to use a machine to speak. by your standards he would be considered retarded, and yet, this man is pure genius.

At 4/10/07 06:59 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/10/07 03:57 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

But Congress did not declare war. And in order to enact military action on a foreign nation, you must first declare war.

Military action is not the same as war. And I already slammed you with that by quoting the fucking constitution.

Bullshit. You're wrong.

"This is the most humane WAR..."

We call Vietnam a war, it wasn't.
We call Korean a war, it wasn't.
We call it the Gulf War, it wasn't.
We call this the war on terror, it isn't a war.

You're a fucking dumbass, like I said, you clearly have absolutely no understanding of what the word war means.

Just to give you a little idea, I'll add some DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS... I doubt it will work seing how pathetically stupid you are, but I'll try all the same.

Definition 1: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air

Definition 2: a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations

I say again, You. Are. A. Fuck-ing. IDIOT!

At 4/10/07 07:11 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Bullshit. You're wrong.

But there's just one tiny problem... there's this little thing in the contitution that says Congress MUST declare War in order for it to be a war.

Congress has not declared war since world war 2.

Good day.

I believe that Memorize was using the legal definition of war while Dre-Man was using the common definition of war.

Practically all of the wars we've had since WWII have been undeclared wars. They were not wars in a United States legal sense, but they were wars in a conventional sense.

At 4/10/07 07:32 PM, Memorize wrote: Good day.

LOL he skipped my post!
yeah he was right about this though
"But Congress did not declare war."
he just doesn't understand the second half.

I love it when he says BULLSHIT! It makes him sound like he actually knows something for once.

Oh yeah who said hes using the conventional term for war, indeed he is, but in that tense it's also an opinion.

At 4/10/07 11:53 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/9/07 04:31 PM, MoronicLegion wrote:

THAT is torture, even though the adminstration said it wasn't.

Not according to our current laws.

According to the Geneva convention, yes, it is torture.

I agree with the person that said that Memorize is arguing the legal definition of war, but the majority are arguing the conventional definition.

At 4/10/07 08:09 PM, MoronicLegion wrote:

According to the Geneva convention, yes, it is torture.

No, it's all based on the interpretation of the word torture. So until I see "waterboarding: Illegal" other than "waterboarding: stop", then I'll say differently. Altho if and when I do see it, i'll say that the UN and the rest of the world (including you) are nothing but 'weak minded idiots' who fail at things that matter.

They have yet to say it is illegal, just to "stop using it". So until they make it illegal, I can tell the UN to fuck off.

Waterboarding is about as harmful as college hazing.

I agree with the person that said that Memorize is arguing the legal definition of war, but the majority are arguing the conventional definition.

Not historians.

Could we get back to the topic, which is WHETHER OR NOT BUSH WILL BE IMPEACHED SOON.

I think we're moving into 'rave mode' where we just yell and scream at each other until all intelligent discussion has completely disappeared.

At 4/10/07 08:20 PM, MoronicLegion wrote: Could we get back to the topic, which is WHETHER OR NOT BUSH WILL BE IMPEACHED SOON.

I think we're moving into 'rave mode' where we just yell and scream at each other until all intelligent discussion has completely disappeared.

oh its all ready passed that.
and no he wont be impeached soon

At 4/10/07 07:32 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/10/07 07:11 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Bullshit. You're wrong.

But there's just one tiny problem... there's this little thing in the contitution that says Congress MUST declare War in order for it to be a war.

Correction: Congress must declare war in order to GO to war, not for it to be a war.

Congress has not declared war since world war 2.

And therefore every war since World War II, such as the Korean WAR, the Vietnam WAR, and the Gulf WAR, has been unconstitutional.

Good day.

Bye! :)

At 4/11/07 12:06 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

Correction: Congress must declare war in order to GO to war, not for it to be a war.

But we are not technically AT war because Congress did not DECLARE war. This is nothing more than a military conflict just like Vietnam and Korea and the Gulf... "war".

And therefore every war since World War II, such as the Korean WAR, the Vietnam WAR, and the Gulf WAR, has been unconstitutional.

Not according to the constitution.

At 4/11/07 12:15 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/11/07 12:06 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

Correction: Congress must declare war in order to GO to war, not for it to be a war.

But we are not technically AT war because Congress did not DECLARE war.

We are technically in an UNCONSTITUTIONAL war, because Congress did not DECLARE war.

This is nothing more than a military conflict just like Vietnam and Korea and the Gulf... "war".

Dear dear Memorize, do I need to pull out the dusty old dictionary and read from its passages of wisdom again, just to show you how incredibly stupid you're being?

And therefore every war since World War II, such as the Korean WAR, the Vietnam WAR, and the Gulf WAR, has been unconstitutional.

Not according to the constitution.

Oh, oh dear Memorize, DIRECTLY in concordance to the Constitution.

We are technically in an UNCONSTITUTIONAL war, because Congress did not DECLARE war.

The military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has been authorized by Congress, therefore, it is perfectly constitutional.

The Vietnam war ended because Congres UN-authorized it.

And we cannot be at war with either Iraq or Afghanistan because our missions there are not directed against the countries themselves. They are merely theaters of operation, same with Korea and Vietnam. Given the volatile nature of the political settings in these places, declaring war would be about as smart as opening a can of soup with a bazooka.

Plus, a declaration of war is reminescent to a total war policy as seen under World War II. Congress has the power to restrict Bush on war time powers due to the fact that we haven't actually declared war.

Dear dear Memorize, do I need to pull out the dusty old dictionary and read from its passages of wisdom again, just to show you how incredibly stupid you're being?

Linguistics dude. A dictionary can and will only go so far, especially on ambiguous and often changing words such as "war".

"imperator" is another one. Please, pull up the dictionary definition of Empire and see what it says. Then pull up Imperator, Caesar, Kaiser, and Czar for comparisons.

I think you get my point.

As far as how historians interpret it, both conflicts are most definitely being written as "wars". But right alongside are books emphasizing how "war" has changed over the years. Most often used are descriptors to differentiate between these types of conflicts, and conflicts of earlier days. Hence, this is a war, but of a specific order, namely unconventional. This has an inherent difference in a conventional war such as World War II.

Now do you two mind ending this absolutely pointless bickering so this thread can die in peace?

1: i hope
2: would be good
3: dem's r gonna win election anywho
4: dump his dead body in a ditch

and finally...
"I think bush should be shot and fired. in that order."

it was a sad day for the world when bush was born

Imperator, I don't know how many times we have told him that but that is what hes being a hard ass about. He just can't accept that these military conflicts are not 'wars' and are 'constitutional'.
Shows how far his mentality goes. :/

At 4/11/07 12:47 AM, Imperator wrote: Linguistics dude. A dictionary can and will only go so far, especially on ambiguous and often changing words such as "war".

Mmmhmmm... I'm sure.

Quit twisting words and realise that your "interpretation" of the word war, and the true meaning of the word war, are two entirely different things.

In case you didn't notice, the entire Constitution is made up of words, and if everyone decided to have their own interpretations of each and every word, we'd have a hell of a lot of problems, now wouldn't we?

I THINK THAT CANDY IS ONLY CANDY IF IT'S SOUR, BECAUSE SOUR CANDY IS THE ONLY KIND OF CANDY THAT'S GOOD!

Dictionary definition of candy: any of a variety of confections made with sugar, syrup, etc., often combined with chocolate, fruit, nuts, etc.

WELL, THE DICTIONARY IS WRONG!

That right there, perfectly states how your "interpretation" of the word war is teetering off of an opinionated bullshit view.

Besides, even though you've told me that my DEFINITION of the word "war" is incorrect, besides the fact that I've provided plenty of sources to prove this, you still haven't even given me YOUR "interpretation" or given me evidence to prove your point at all.

At 4/10/07 07:06 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/10/07 05:23 PM, Nasty-Nas wrote: Bush isn't dumb. I saw some video on how good he was in debating before he became president.

"You're working hard to put food on your family."

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."

"They misunderestimated me."

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?"

Go to this website to listen to audio clips.

Lol. Bush at debating before presidency.

Good job at pointing out the bad before the good.

He just can't handle America well. Ignorant? Yes. Dumb? No. If he is dumb, how did he get his way to presidency?

I know that human beings and FISH can coexist peacefully? How is that an intelligent statement?

Ignorant=/=Dumb. Two different words.

A smart person that gets A+s can forget something important. That's ignorance. He became ignorant about the thing he forgot, but yet he is still smart by getting A+s.

A dumb person can fail his school and life, and still know what's going on. He's not being ignorant about his life, but he's pretty dumb by failing.

At 4/10/07 07:11 PM, Korriken wrote: jumbling up your words is in no way a sign of intelligence... or lack thereof.

but its definetley a reason to keep him in office; hes a riot.

That right there, perfectly states how your "interpretation" of the word war is teetering off of an opinionated bullshit view.

You didn't do what I asked you, and instead went off on some tyrannical rant. Well fucking done Dre, way to prove your stupidity.

Maybe when you get to college, and the first class all you do is discuss definitions for words like "war", "violence", and "suffering", you'll fuckin understand.

Until then, I guess this stuff is just way too thick for you.

At 4/11/07 03:52 PM, Imperator wrote: You didn't do what I asked you, and instead went off on some tyrannical rant. Well fucking done Dre, way to prove your stupidity.

Maybe when you get to college, and the first class all you do is discuss definitions for words like "war", "violence", and "suffering", you'll fuckin understand.

Until then, I guess this stuff is just way too thick for you.

You know you could of used a whole lot more then that to slam him in the face.
Every single thing in his post shows his intelligence level.
I find it juicy that Dre calls it interpretations of words when theres a difference between everyday use and technical use.
You know this thread is inspiring me to make a movie about Dre showing people how dumb he is. Will this movie be biased? You sure bet your ass off it will be! But it will also be factual in every way.

Paradox

Where is this thread going exactly?

At 4/11/07 10:48 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/11/07 12:47 AM, Imperator wrote:

Besides, even though you've told me that my DEFINITION of the word "war" is incorrect, besides the fact that I've provided plenty of sources to prove this, you still haven't even given me YOUR "interpretation" or given me evidence to prove your point at all.

I've proven to you before that the war is constitutional, but maybe this will make you shut up.

Due to the War Powers Resolution of 1974, Congress limited the Presidents ability to wage war. The Act detailed that a president is able to use troops for 60 days without congressional approval, but needs approval by Congress either after that or before that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resol ution

And Congress gave that approval.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdo c.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:pub l243.107

At 4/11/07 04:07 PM, zeus-almighty wrote: Where is this thread going exactly?

cock probably.

At 4/11/07 04:22 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/11/07 10:48 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/11/07 12:47 AM, Imperator wrote:

Besides, even though you've told me that my DEFINITION of the word "war" is incorrect, besides the fact that I've provided plenty of sources to prove this, you still haven't even given me YOUR "interpretation" or given me evidence to prove your point at all.

I've proven to you before that the war is constitutional, but maybe this will make you shut up.

No, no you didn't.

Due to the War Powers Resolution of 1974, Congress limited the Presidents ability to wage war. The Act detailed that a president is able to use troops for 60 days without congressional approval, but needs approval by Congress either after that or before that.

The President never had the ability to wage war, so there was nothing to limit. That act was unconstitutional, the President has nothing to do with engaging or disengaging in combat, he calls the shots, but doesn't decide how the country initially acts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resol ution

And Congress gave that approval.

As I said, the act was unconstitutional, and therefore is void.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdo c.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:pub l243.107

At 4/11/07 05:19 PM, Dre-Man wrote: No, no you didn't.

Actually yes he did.

The President never had the ability to wage war, so there was nothing to limit. That act was unconstitutional, the President has nothing to do with engaging or disengaging in combat, he calls the shots, but doesn't decide how the country initially acts.
As I said, the act was unconstitutional, and therefore is void.

Yes, some 14 year old on the internet gets to declare what is and whats not constitutional and not congress. It makes so much since now.

Dre-Man: Ph.D in political science from Schwinn bikes university.

Hobbies include playing games, eating food, collecting baseball cards, girl watching, and writing on the lingustical effects of codes of law on the socio-political spectrum of 20th century US foreign policy.

That about wrap it up? Yeah, thought so.....

Dre-man:

Define "Violence". Go ahead, do it. I want you to do what 8 undergraduates, 2 graduate students, and 1 professor failed to do in a 3hr seminar. Go ahead, pull out your Bible (aka, Webster-Merriam) and give me the definition of violence. Don't bother thinking about the consequences of such definitions, just do it.

I've only been in a class that discusses political violence since January, and am writing a paper on the role of constructing the "Other" in terms of state making and the monopolization of violence, but go ahead. Sum up 3 months of work for me.

I've been studying aspects of war longer than you've been doing multiplication tables, so SHUT THE FUCK UP! Admit you DON'T know what you're talking about, like a NORMAL person, and maybe try LEARNING something from what other, WISER, individuals are telling you.

ASS
CLOWN

His age is 14. He was bound to lose. He just doesn't wanna get humiliated.

At 4/11/07 05:19 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/11/07 04:22 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/11/07 10:48 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/11/07 12:47 AM, Imperator wrote:

The President never had the ability to wage war, so there was nothing to limit. That act was unconstitutional, the President has nothing to do with engaging or disengaging in combat, he calls the shots, but doesn't decide how the country initially acts.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/const itution.articleii.html#section2

As I said, the act was unconstitutional, and therefore is void.

Any proof to back up your claim, because empy handed gestures are surely the law of the land.

At 4/11/07 05:57 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/const itution.articleii.html#section2

Yeah, no shit, but he has nothing to do with America deciding to or not to go to war.

As I said, the act was unconstitutional, and therefore is void.

Any proof to back up your claim, because empy handed gestures are surely the law of the land.

The Constitution is the law of the land, and you obviously have selective reading.