Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/27/03 06:01 PM, Jimsween wrote:

First of all, french indian war. Everthing after that could just be considered quelling a resistance. And congress doesnt HAVE to declare is a war to make it a war, they can authorize any attack just as the constitution says.

If it isn't declared as war it isn't a war. Therefore it was a genocide. bam!

That looks like a copy paste job to me, none of this says anything though escpescially because Columbus was under the order of Queen Isabella and King Ferdinan.

They didn't know about The Arawak (taino) Indians, much less about the land they were living on therefore he acted on his own free will. Queen Isabella and King Ferdinan couldn't give orders about something they didn't know existed.

And how does this apply to the Economy of all countries, if you would have read you would have seen he is claiming that countries had a higher economy, when truthfully Germany was the only one with a higher economy.

Yes but the U.S. economy was still floating in the shitter when you claimed it was a-o.k.

At 6/27/03 06:08 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/27/03 06:01 PM, Jimsween wrote:

First of all, french indian war. Everthing after that could just be considered quelling a resistance. And congress doesnt HAVE to declare is a war to make it a war, they can authorize any attack just as the constitution says.

If it isn't declared as war it isn't a war. Therefore it was a genocide. bam!

We never declared war against Iraq, and it specifically states that congress has the abilioty to declare war but it does not say they have to.

That looks like a copy paste job to me, none of this says anything though escpescially because Columbus was under the order of Queen Isabella and King Ferdinan.

They didn't know about The Arawak (taino) Indians, much less about the land they were living on therefore he acted on his own free will. Queen Isabella and King Ferdinan couldn't give orders about something they didn't know existed.

When Columbus got back they asked for him to bring more valuables, such as gold spices and slaves.

And how does this apply to the Economy of all countries, if you would have read you would have seen he is claiming that countries had a higher economy, when truthfully Germany was the only one with a higher economy.

Yes but the U.S. economy was still floating in the shitter when you claimed it was a-o.k.

It was not floating in the shitter, it was the second best in the world.

At 6/27/03 07:44 PM, Jimsween wrote:

We never declared war against Iraq, and it specifically states that congress has the abilioty to declare war but it does not say they have to.

Iraq was a wonderful liberation, not a war. If a war isn't officially declared a war it isn't a war in the official term of a war.

When Columbus got back they asked for him to bring more valuables, such as gold spices and slaves.

It's a known fact that Columbus had already killed most of the Arawak natives on his first voyage. And he had tried to bring slaves but they either escaped or died on the way back to Europe.

It was not floating in the shitter, it was the second best in the world.

O.K., show me your proof of that.

At 6/27/03 10:13 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/27/03 07:44 PM, Jimsween wrote:

We never declared war against Iraq, and it specifically states that congress has the abilioty to declare war but it does not say they have to.

Iraq was a wonderful liberation, not a war. If a war isn't officially declared a war it isn't a war in the official term of a war.

The constitution seems to disagree with you, it gives congress the right to declare war but does not say they have to. There is nothing anywhere that says that it has to be declared a war to be a war.

When Columbus got back they asked for him to bring more valuables, such as gold spices and slaves.

It's a known fact that Columbus had already killed most of the Arawak natives on his first voyage. And he had tried to bring slaves but they either escaped or died on the way back to Europe.

No, he killed them through a long period of time, that is why they kept dying after he died.

It was not floating in the shitter, it was the second best in the world.

O.K., show me your proof of that.

This one seems to think we were the top economy
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
And this one is rather long but worth the read
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/depression.html

At 6/27/03 10:55 PM, Jimsween wrote:

The constitution seems to disagree with you, it gives congress the right to declare war but does not say they have to. There is nothing anywhere that says that it has to be declared a war to be a war.

According to that very constitution, congress can declare war but the President can wage war.

No, he killed them through a long period of time, that is why they kept dying after he died.

"By 1508, an enumeration showed only 60,000 alive...in 1548 Oviedo (Fernandex de Oviedo, the official Spanish historian of conquest) doubted whether 500 Indians remained."
Columbus & Western Civilization, Howard Zinn (excerpts)

This one seems to think we were the top economy
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
And this one is rather long but worth the read
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/depression.html

None of those webpages say anything about the U.S. being the 2nd best in the world. NOTHING.

At 6/27/03 10:55 PM, Jimsween wrote:

The constitution seems to disagree with you, it gives congress the right to declare war but does not say they have to. There is nothing anywhere that says that it has to be declared a war to be a war.

According to that very constitution, congress can declare war but the President can wage war.

No, he killed them through a long period of time, that is why they kept dying after he died.

"By 1508, an enumeration showed only 60,000 alive...in 1548 Oviedo (Fernandex de Oviedo, the official Spanish historian of conquest) doubted whether 500 Indians remained."
Columbus & Western Civilization, Howard Zinn (excerpts)

This one seems to think we were the top economy
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
And this one is rather long but worth the read
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/depression.html

None of those webpages say anything about the U.S. being the 2nd best in the world. NOTHING.

Sorry about the double post, my browser kept saying THE PAGE CANNOT BE DISPLAYED ERROR ERROR ERROR

At 6/27/03 11:47 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/27/03 10:55 PM, Jimsween wrote:

The constitution seems to disagree with you, it gives congress the right to declare war but does not say they have to. There is nothing anywhere that says that it has to be declared a war to be a war.

According to that very constitution, congress can declare war but the President can wage war.

I never heard that part but I don't know why you would say that, seeing as how it ruins your stance.

No, he killed them through a long period of time, that is why they kept dying after he died.

"By 1508, an enumeration showed only 60,000 alive...in 1548 Oviedo (Fernandex de Oviedo, the official Spanish historian of conquest) doubted whether 500 Indians remained."
Columbus & Western Civilization, Howard Zinn (excerpts)

O...k, you just proved my point. Thank you, I guess...

This one seems to think we were the top economy
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
And this one is rather long but worth the read
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/depression.html

None of those webpages say anything about the U.S. being the 2nd best in the world. NOTHING.

The first one said that America was the first Economic superpower, and the second said that America's production was down less% than the rest of the countries in ratio to the previous economy.

It seems lots of these things fly off-topic....

At 6/27/03 11:53 PM, Jimsween wrote:

I never heard that part but I don't know why you would say that, seeing as how it ruins your stance.

Because if the president launches a war without congress's approval it is illegal. Congress has to declare war.

O...k, you just proved my point. Thank you, I guess...

Your point is that Columbus killed 940 000 natives in 16 years?

This one seems to think we were the top economy
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
And this one is rather long but worth the read
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/depression.html

None of those webpages say anything about the U.S. being the 2nd best in the world. NOTHING.

The first one said that America was the first Economic superpower, and the second said that America's production was down less% than the rest of the countries in ratio to the previous economy.

"1945
Although the war is the largest tragedy in human history, the United States emerges as the world's only economic superpower."

You said that it was the world's superpower or at least the 2nd in lead before the war. Stick to one claim and stand by it until it's proved true or false. In this case, false. Now be a man and admit that you were wrong instead of changing subject.

At 5/11/03 12:25 AM, JBoneZ wrote: I am sick of people hating their own country(I am talking about the US). It is far from perfect, but I will be damned if there is another country better than th US!-some person I forgot the name of. If they are living in the best country in the world, and they start protesting against its decisions, and hate the country itself, why don't they just...leave?

I'm with this guy, I mean if you don't like it here leave so someon else can have your job. You can go live in iraq or some other America hating country.

At 6/28/03 05:42 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/27/03 11:53 PM, Jimsween wrote:

I never heard that part but I don't know why you would say that, seeing as how it ruins your stance.

Because if the president launches a war without congress's approval it is illegal. Congress has to declare war.

No, it never says that anywhere in the constitution. As a matter of fact it never says that anywhere.

O...k, you just proved my point. Thank you, I guess...

Your point is that Columbus killed 940 000 natives in 16 years?

No, he wasnt even there the whole time and furthermore, he was dead in 2508 so how could he have kept hilling them?

This one seems to think we were the top economy
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
And this one is rather long but worth the read
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/depression.html

None of those webpages say anything about the U.S. being the 2nd best in the world. NOTHING.

The first one said that America was the first Economic superpower, and the second said that America's production was down less% than the rest of the countries in ratio to the previous economy.

"1945
Although the war is the largest tragedy in human history, the United States emerges as the world's only economic superpower."

You said that it was the world's superpower or at least the 2nd in lead before the war. Stick to one claim and stand by it until it's proved true or false. In this case, false. Now be a man and admit that you were wrong instead of changing subject.

No, you didnt even look at the other link, and have shown no evidence to prove me wrong. Your simnply being a coward now.

At 6/27/03 06:01 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 6/27/03 12:33 PM, nitroxide wrote:

At 6/26/03 03:08 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 6/26/03 02:58 AM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/26/03 02:17 AM, Jimsween wrote:

Jim,since when is genocide war?There was no declaration of war.They come on shore imposed their presence,the natives greeted them with open arms and they destroyed them and stole their home.Is this what war is about?I thought america says its to liberate people.

First of all, french indian war. Everthing after that could just be considered quelling a resistance. And congress doesnt HAVE to declare is a war to make it a war, they can authorize any attack just as the constitution says.

THE CONSTITUTION WASNT MADE.

From an indigenous vantage point, Columbus' arrival was a disaster from the beginning. Although his own diaries indicated that he was greeted by the Taino Indians with the most generous hospitality he had ever known, he immediately began the enslavement and slaughter of the Indian peoples of the Caribbean islands. As the eminent Columbus biographer Samuel Eliot Morison admits in his book, Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Columbus was personally responsible for enslavement and murder of indigenous peoples. He was personally responsible for the design and operation of the encomienda system that tied Indians as slaves to the lands stolen from them by the European invaders. Excerpt from-Russell Means and Glenn Morris position statement in 1991 on behalf of the American Indian Movement of Colorado

That looks like a copy paste job to me, none of this says anything though escpescially because Columbus was under the order of Queen Isabella and King Ferdinan.

Excerpt from-Russell Means and Glenn Morris position statement in 1991 on behalf of the American Indian Movement of Coloradoi told you it was what are you implying?Ohh..ok so you believe that the mason followers arent guilty because they were under Charlies order?

And how does this apply to the Economy of all countries, if you would have read you would have seen he is claiming that countries had a higher economy, when truthfully Germany was the only one with a higher economy.

And your stating that Americas economy dint bounce back up as a direct result of the WAR.

At 6/29/03 01:52 AM, nitroxide wrote: THE CONSTITUTION WASNT MADE.

So I guess it just appeared out of nowhere. I'm assuming you were going to add back then to the sentece and that is becase it was done by england, and englad (being a monarchy) does not have to declare war.

Excerpt from-Russell Means and Glenn Morris position statement in 1991 on behalf of the American Indian Movement of Coloradoi told you it was what are you implying?Ohh..ok so you believe that the mason followers arent guilty because they were under Charlies order?

They arent Americans, read the thread before you post.

And your stating that Americas economy dint bounce back up as a direct result of the WAR.

No, your just making stuff up now. Don't post if your just going to tell a bunch of lies.

At 6/28/03 10:48 PM, Jimsween wrote:

No, it never says that anywhere in the constitution. As a matter of fact it never says that anywhere.

GO READ THE CONSTITUTION.

No, he wasnt even there the whole time and furthermore, he was dead in 2508 so how could he have kept hilling them?

Wow! He's a time traveller?

No, you didnt even look at the other link, and have shown no evidence to prove me wrong. Your simnply being a coward now.

I don't have to show you evidence because America became a super power after the war, go read any book or website on that topic. Hell, it even was in the simpsons episode where Lisa takes dancing lessons. Stop flmaing. :)

At 6/29/03 03:40 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/28/03 10:48 PM, Jimsween wrote:

No, it never says that anywhere in the constitution. As a matter of fact it never says that anywhere.

GO READ THE CONSTITUTION.

I already did, it never says that anywhere. If you have evidence of where it says that I will gladly hearit but it does not. Congress does not have to declare war for it to be a war.

No, he wasnt even there the whole time and furthermore, he was dead in 2508 so how could he have kept hilling them?

Wow! He's a time traveller?

No, he was dead in 2508, why would he have to travel time to be dead in 2508? Sheesh nailbomb, get back on your meds.

No, you didnt even look at the other link, and have shown no evidence to prove me wrong. Your simnply being a coward now.

I don't have to show you evidence because America became a super power after the war, go read any book or website on that topic. Hell, it even was in the simpsons episode where Lisa takes dancing lessons. Stop flmaing. :)

I take it by your not showing of evidence that you cannot find any. I have shown my evidence and you have not shown any for your argument.

At 7/1/03 12:54 PM, Jimsween wrote:

I already did, it never says that anywhere. If you have evidence of where it says that I will gladly hearit but it does not. Congress does not have to declare war for it to be a war.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

No, he was dead in 2508, why would he have to travel time to be dead in 2508? Sheesh nailbomb, get back on your meds.

So he's some sort of super-being that lived over a thousand years? This is really some low-brow debate.

I take it by your not showing of evidence that you cannot find any. I have shown my evidence and you have not shown any for your argument.

It's like having to prove that oranges are a fruit. IT'S COMMON KNOWLEDGE! COMMON KNOWLEDGE!!! but now I rememeber that you're still in junior high so I can't really point the finger at you for your lack of common knowledge.

At 7/1/03 08:08 PM, nailbomb wrote: Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

Congress must declare war for it to be formally considered a war.

Saying that this is the only measure of war however, ignores the police actions and interventions, etc. going back to Truman and Korea.

At 7/1/03 08:24 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 7/1/03 08:08 PM, nailbomb wrote: Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

Congress must declare war for it to be formally considered a war.

Saying that this is the only measure of war however, ignores the police actions and interventions, etc. going back to Truman and Korea.

Personally, I believe that it has come to a point where one of two things is going on within the American government concering the consulting of Congress before declaring war on a nation.

1. The President figures "What the hell, it's a cause the people support, and Congress, being in my favor, won't stop me." and goes ahead with the military actions, as we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. The enemies we fight now are not countries themselves, but leaders and groups, slyly avoiding the need to declare war. Also, in defense of that, declaring war would give the enemy -- take Afghanistan for example -- enough time to flee. Actions must be taken decisively and without giving time for the enemy to escape.

I can see both sides of the argument, and it's one that I've played both sides of in the two "wars" that President Bush has involved this nation in. I was in support of his actions in Afghanistan, but, as you all know, strictly against Iraq.

Yes but Jimsween's claim is that the atrocities commited against the natives nations of America were merely acts of war when really there never was a war declared by the legislative branch of the government or anything.

At 7/1/03 09:51 PM, nailbomb wrote: Yes but Jimsween's claim is that the atrocities commited against the natives nations of America were merely acts of war when really there never was a war declared by the legislative branch of the government or anything.

In a sense, though, it was a war. Granted, it was horribly mismatched in the favor of the Americans, but a war none the less. It was a war for land. Yes, in the eyes of the educated it was an awful thing, but we can also look back and see that, at the time, it was for the best for the nation. I do not defend in any way the actions against Native Americans, but if you look, you can see that, back then, we didn't very much care for anyone who was blocking the westward expansion.

According to your constitution, it wasn't a war.

At 7/1/03 10:03 PM, nailbomb wrote: According to your constitution, it wasn't a war.

Well, the Constitution is for people who like to follow rules. I've not known the U.S. to be too keen on them when something they want is so close but out of reach because of a few formalities.

At 7/1/03 11:02 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

Well, the Constitution is for people who like to follow rules. I've not known the U.S. to be too keen on them when something they want is so close but out of reach because of a few formalities.

*cough* oil *cough* terrorism *cough*

At 7/1/03 08:08 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 7/1/03 12:54 PM, Jimsween wrote:

I already did, it never says that anywhere. If you have evidence of where it says that I will gladly hearit but it does not. Congress does not have to declare war for it to be a war.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

I dont know where you are getting that, it says Congress shall have the power to declare war but I dont see anything about them having to declare war.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html

No, he was dead in 2508, why would he have to travel time to be dead in 2508? Sheesh nailbomb, get back on your meds.

So he's some sort of super-being that lived over a thousand years? This is really some low-brow debate.

No, I said he was dead in 2508, he doesnt have to be a super being to be dead 1000 years after he died.

I take it by your not showing of evidence that you cannot find any. I have shown my evidence and you have not shown any for your argument.

It's like having to prove that oranges are a fruit. IT'S COMMON KNOWLEDGE! COMMON KNOWLEDGE!!! but now I rememeber that you're still in junior high so I can't really point the finger at you for your lack of common knowledge.

Common knowledge that you lack proof of, you cannot claim it is common knowledge unless you have proof. I showed you my proof that America's economy was the second (or more) highest and you have shown none to your cause.

At 7/2/03 12:59 AM, Jimsween wrote:

I dont know where you are getting that, it says Congress shall have the power to declare war but I dont see anything about them having to declare war.

Under international law, if a war isn't declared, there is no war going on.

No, I said he was dead in 2508, he doesnt have to be a super being to be dead 1000 years after he died.

he was born in 1451 and he's going to die in 2508? I'm going to stop replying to your posts if you don't make any sense.

Common knowledge that you lack proof of, you cannot claim it is common knowledge unless you have proof. I showed you my proof that America's economy was the second (or more) highest and you have shown none to your cause.

No you didn't. None of your links said that. It's common knowledge to those that are out of Junior High.

At 7/2/03 01:27 AM, nailbomb wrote:

At 7/2/03 12:59 AM, Jimsween wrote:

I dont know where you are getting that, it says Congress shall have the power to declare war but I dont see anything about them having to declare war.

Under international law, if a war isn't declared, there is no war going on.

Where is your proof of this.

No, I said he was dead in 2508, he doesnt have to be a super being to be dead 1000 years after he died.

he was born in 1451 and he's going to die in 2508? I'm going to stop replying to your posts if you don't make any sense.

No, I didnt say he died in 2508, I said he was dead in 2508 which is a fact. Read before you type.

Common knowledge that you lack proof of, you cannot claim it is common knowledge unless you have proof. I showed you my proof that America's economy was the second (or more) highest and you have shown none to your cause.

No you didn't. None of your links said that. It's common knowledge to those that are out of Junior High.

I'm in high school stupid. And since that last post was not showing any proof I take that as an admittance or defeat.

At 7/2/03 01:30 AM, Jimsween wrote:

Where is your proof of this.

In the Geneva Accords.

No, I didnt say he died in 2508, I said he was dead in 2508 which is a fact. Read before you type.

Why the hell are you using the past tense to refer to a time 505 years from now? You didn't learn proper verb forms yet?

I'm in high school stupid. And since that last post was not showing any proof I take that as an admittance or defeat.

Hey look! Jimmy's trying to get banned again! You're in your first year of high school aren't you?

At 7/1/03 11:19 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 7/1/03 11:02 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

Well, the Constitution is for people who like to follow rules. I've not known the U.S. to be too keen on them when something they want is so close but out of reach because of a few formalities.

*cough* oil *cough* terrorism *cough*

Ssh. Ignore the strange coincidences.

look i just got back from iraq and i still belive if u wanna talk shit go for it just leave all the soldiers alone we didn't ask 2 go over there we just do but i dissagree with red_neck_1 we arn't fighting for nobodys freedom but that has nothin to do with me i just do my job 2 make my momma my daddy and all my family proud