Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/22/08 02:50 PM, Rideo wrote:

At 9/22/08 01:39 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Non-Americans like Shaun like Obama because they think he'll be good for them, not because they think he'll be good for Americans.

You've said that before and you've also contradicted yourself with another statement many times.

Nope.

"Foreigners want Obama because they think they'll be better for their own country rather than the US"

Because that's precisely the truth.

But when someone starts rooting for the downfall of the US you are quick to point out that the world economy is dependent on the US

Because it is.

and that it's likely their country would fall as a result of an economic collapse in the US

Because it would, despite the fact that they are unaware of it.

thus suggesting that foreign nations should want what's best for the American economy.

Um, that means that their behavior is contradictory, it doesn't mean that what I've said is contradictory. The SHOULD want what's best for the US economy, but that doesn't mean that they do. Their bias and their anti-Americanism overrides logic.

So if foreign nations should hope for what's best for the US economy

Due to their economic dependence on the US, they SHOULD want what's best for the US economy. But since their bias is so fierce and causes them to take such self-defeating positions, they take glee in the prospect of a downfall in the US. They want Obama based on their own reasons that have little to nothing to do with what they think Obama will do for everyday Americans.

Pointing those things out is not a contradiction.

Therefore stating that foreigners like Obama because he helps their nations is a moot point as he would help their nations by helping America.

No.

Someone saying that they support Obama, after repeatedly displaying outright hatred for the US and delusions in which they think the world economy doesn't depend on the US, is moot if not counterproductive to their own goals. Someone who is both unaware of their dependence on the US, ungrateful for their relationship with the US, and generally malicious against the Us and Americans is not a good source of political advice for American voters.

At 9/22/08 03:10 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

thus suggesting that foreign nations should want what's best for the American economy.

Um, that means that their behavior is contradictory, it doesn't mean that what I've said is contradictory. The SHOULD want what's best for the US economy, but that doesn't mean that they do. Their bias and their anti-Americanism overrides logic.

So you simply assume all foreign posters siding with Obama do not understand the relationship of our nations?

So if foreign nations should hope for what's best for the US economy

Due to their economic dependence on the US, they SHOULD want what's best for the US economy. But since their bias is so fierce and causes them to take such self-defeating positions, they take glee in the prospect of a downfall in the US. They want Obama based on their own reasons that have little to nothing to do with what they think Obama will do for everyday Americans.

But you are assuming that these people want Obama in power for the deliberate purpose of the downfall of the US, which without actually searching I believe I can say no one on this board has actually outright stated such views.

Therefore stating that foreigners like Obama because he helps their nations is a moot point as he would help their nations by helping America.

No.

Someone saying that they support Obama, after repeatedly displaying outright hatred for the US and delusions in which they think the world economy doesn't depend on the US, is moot if not counterproductive to their own goals. Someone who is both unaware of their dependence on the US, ungrateful for their relationship with the US, and generally malicious against the Us and Americans is not a good source of political advice for American voters.

Okay, I'll admit (in summary of what is said directly above) if the poster is a total idiot then they might support the downfall of the US by supporting Obama. But that doesn't mean all foreign posters don't understand the relationship of their country with this us while supporting Obama.

I'd like to add that all the deleted points and responses were not deleted for space, you responded to parts of my post that didn't need a response as they were simply a paraphrased example of what I was about to discuss, so it's unnecessary to argue the validity of a statement when I proposed no argument to it's being incorrect. An example, the quote on foreigners and your response is unnecessary as I was not arguing it to be a false point but rather bringing it up as an example for other readers.

I don't believe the hype that mccain himself is pushing that he's as close to bush as he claims to be, the two hate each other, and mccain has merely waddled toward the right to get the ultra-right party machine to help him get elected. Palin's religious inclinations aren't really a concern, though trying to ban books is a huge issue for me. Anyway I'm rooting for Obama, but Mccain would only be the nightmare imagined if he dies or goes wild eyed about winning the occupation in Iraq, Obama is also likely not as liberal as he makes himself out to be, if he were he wouldn't evn be in the race right now.

At 9/22/08 03:23 PM, Rideo wrote: So you simply assume all foreign posters siding with Obama do not understand the relationship of our nations?

Not all foreigners, but the vast majority of them. Especially the one in question.

But you are assuming that these people want Obama in power for the deliberate purpose of the downfall of the US

Some of them, yes, despite the fact that this would cause a downfall of their own country, something they are unaware of. But no, whether or not they want an absolute downfall or not is irrelevant. When they are motivated by their own interests and their own political views, and they have previously shown outright aversion for the US, their support for Obama should not be a positive in the mind of an American voter.

Someone saying that they support Obama, after repeatedly displaying outright hatred for the US and delusions in which they think the world economy doesn't depend on the US, is moot if not counterproductive to their own goals. Someone who is both unaware of their dependence on the US, ungrateful for their relationship with the US, and generally malicious against the Us and Americans is not a good source of political advice for American voters.

Okay, I'll admit (in summary of what is said directly above) if the poster is a total idiot then they might support the downfall of the US by supporting Obama. But that doesn't mean all foreign posters don't understand the relationship of their country with this us while supporting Obama.

Find where I said that all foreign posters don't understand the relationship their country has with us. I was referring to non-Americans who are like a specific user whose comment I was referring to.

I'd like to add that all the deleted points and responses were not deleted for space, you responded to parts of my post that didn't need a response

Um, you accused me of contradicting myself, when I didn't. That was the purpose of your post, and now you changed your tune.

At 9/22/08 03:40 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I'd like to add that all the deleted points and responses were not deleted for space, you responded to parts of my post that didn't need a response

Um, you accused me of contradicting myself, when I didn't. That was the purpose of your post, and now you changed your tune.

I changed no tune good sir, there are simply parts of my post that needed no response and you provided a response anyways, which is needless. I'll point it out directly for you though.

" "Foreigners want Obama because they think they'll be better for their own country rather than the US"

Because that's precisely the truth."

You didn't need to add "because that's precisely the truth" since I was quoting you. It's like agreeing with yourself.

" But when someone starts rooting for the downfall of the US you are quick to point out that the world economy is dependent on the US"

Because it is

You didn't need to respond here because I didn't argue that the US isn't detrimental to the world economy.

" and that it's likely their country would fall as a result of an economic collapse in the US"

Because it would, despite the fact that they are unaware of it.

This statement is partially unneeded, if it were simply "Because it would" then it would be entirely unneeded. Though you brought up the point here that you believe they are largely unaware of world economic relations, that gives it validity as a response, if it were alone or followed by a paragraph. But this sentence is still unneeded because the point you brought up here is addressed in a further paragraph thus making this sentence useless filler.

I didn't change my mind on anything, I just think you could clean up your post grammatically to make it more pleasant to read. I'm not a total grammar Nazi, but I hate when people pick apart a post to put in a thousand unneeded responses that slow the reader down without purpose.

At 9/22/08 03:55 PM, Rideo wrote:

At 9/22/08 03:40 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I'd like to add that all the deleted points and responses were not deleted for space, you responded to parts of my post that didn't need a response

Um, you accused me of contradicting myself, when I didn't. That was the purpose of your post, and now you changed your tune.

I changed no tune good sir, there are simply parts of my post that needed no response and you provided a response anyways, which is needless.

And what exactly are you doing now? Posting nonsense that is needless?

I'll point it out directly for you though.

" "Foreigners want Obama because they think they'll be better for their own country rather than the US"

Because that's precisely the truth."

You didn't need to add "because that's precisely the truth" since I was quoting you. It's like agreeing with yourself.

Whoa.

You accused me of contradicting myself. You said I was saying something so I said it was the truth, and then later elaborating on my position to show that two things that I believe, that I believe are the truth, are not contradictory.

Saying that people's anti-US views negate the validity of their support for Obama does not contradict a claim that their economies depend on the US and would collapse in the event of a US collapse. That was what you're were saying originally, and you have failed to justify your false accusation. It would only be a contradiction if I claimed that they KNEW their economies were dependent on the US, and that therefore that they knew something good for Americans and the US economy would be indirectly good for them and their economy.

You didn't need to respond here because I didn't argue that the US isn't detrimental to the world economy.

You argued that what I was saying was contradictory. It wasn't. So I said both of them were true to show that they weren't contradictory.

This statement is partially unneeded, if it were simply "Because it would" then it would be entirely unneeded.

Ok, let's get this straight. You said I was contradicting myself, when I wasn't at all. I began to respond to your post, saying that the two things I said, that weren't contradictory, were true. And now your entire post is made up of pointing out what you think is "unneeded" about my posts? And yet you don't think that this act in and of itself is "unneeded"?

That's absolutely hilarious.

But this sentence is still unneeded because the point you brought up here is addressed in a further paragraph thus making this sentence useless filler.

AHAHAHAHAHA. What are you doing right now? Useless filler.

I didn't change my mind on anything, I just think you could clean up your post grammatically to make it more pleasant to read.

AHAHAHAHA

I'm not a total grammar Nazi, but I hate when people pick apart a post to put in a thousand unneeded responses that slow the reader down without purpose.

AHAHAHA. You're a riot.

You're doing the exact same thing that you're accusing me of doing, as you do it.

I didn't contradict myself.
I didn't use unneeded filler in clarifying my points.
You contradicted yourself and used unneeded filler in order to accuse me of those things.

This is incredibly entertaining.

At 9/22/08 04:11 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: And what exactly are you doing now? Posting nonsense that is needless?

Something I wasn't hoping on doing but since you didn't understand my previous statement I went and explained it. If it had posted all of that originally it would have be contradictory to it's own purpose, but I didn't, I only posted it after you qualified yourself as needing further explanation. Therefore validating my post as an explanation and not contradictory to it's own purpose.

I don't need to go step by step and respond to everything because most of what you said is just repitition of this first point. On the subject of the original first post, I actually admitted that with your explanation you were correct in that you were most likely not contradicting yourself in the event that the posters really are unaware of important global relations, though I said I don't find it likely to happen often, you in the next post prompted that it happened in this instance, therefore making me incorrect. You seemed to have not noticed that and still continue to press that point when my last post was actually all about grammar (a post I would rather have not like to have made but was forced to further elaborate the purpose of the original post).

Now the only bone left to pick is this accusation of my usage of filler and the claim that you did not have any unneeded sentences in your post. You see this is completely incorrect as my last post was entirely about the grammar of the posts in this topic. The main subject cannot be filler, that just does not make sense. I already explained why I had to make that post (I'm astonished by the way that you would call a post that directly addresses a single point as filler). I also already pointed out the unneeded sentences you used, if you deny that these sentences indeed needed usage than you must provide an argument to them being useful in the post, you have not done so in the previous post and therefore that post is filler, unlike mine.

This post is just like my last one, unneeded ranting on grammar. So we could just end this now or you can respond in the same kind as your previous post and cause me to have to either further explain something to you or to simply ignore it.

At 9/22/08 05:14 PM, Contipec wrote: People who vote for McCain are a bunch of idiots who support Bush and are ignorants.

That's a ignorant thing to say get your facts straight. On the bright side the party's are to pure now not like in the 60's. In today's world you ether are right or left there no in between.

I love how cellardoor's entire argument against Rideo is that europeans are too stupid/biased to understand that the US is one of the main support beams in the western world's economy. But he doesn't have anything to back this up besides his own opinions based on stupidity/bias.

At 9/22/08 06:31 PM, Musician wrote: I love how cellardoor's entire argument against Rideo is that europeans

See: Europeans, Canadians, Australians etc...

are too stupid/biased to understand that the US is one of the main support beams in the western world's economy.

Yes, my point is that these people either root for, or attack the US for economic problems while refusing to acknowledge (or outright denying) their dependence on the US when confronted with the fact that the world economy depends on the US. A mixture of ignorance of the facts and bias is the culprit.

The downturn in the US is causing downturns elsewhere.

But he doesn't have anything to back this up besides his own opinions based on stupidity/bias.

What is it that you're confused about here? Do you think I don't have evidence to suggest that that their economies depend on and are doing worse than the US or that they are unaware of it?

For the latter, the countless opinions and "stupidity/bias" that is paraded around Newgrounds by Europeans (And Canadians, and Australians) is evidence. Such as this or this as recent examples. You have people saying the US "fails" while their economy is doing worse, or you have people rooting for the UsSeconomy to collapse for their own financial opportunities they think will arise from it. Pay attention to the posts of JudgeDredd in the latter, he is doing exactly what I said people do... denying the effect a collapse in the US will have in the world economy. And before you say something like "lolz, you think they represent all of those countries?!", consider the context (which I'm pretty sure you didn't do before bombarding this thread with your irrelevant personal attack).

I've argued many, many times that the world economy depends on the US, and that other economies including those of the people who rip on the US economy, are doing worse. I've had several people suggest this is not the case... if that's what you think I don't have evidence for.

At 9/22/08 07:00 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: For the latter, the countless opinions and "stupidity/bias" that is paraded around Newgrounds by Europeans (And Canadians, and Australians) is evidence. Such as this or this as recent examples. You have people saying the US "fails" while their economy is doing worse, or you have people rooting for the UsSeconomy to collapse for their own financial opportunities they think will arise from it. Pay attention to the posts of JudgeDredd in the latter, he is doing exactly what I said people do... denying the effect a collapse in the US will have in the world economy. And before you say something like "lolz, you think they represent all of those countries?!", consider the context (which I'm pretty sure you didn't do before bombarding this thread with your irrelevant personal attack).

See this is my problem. You're assuming that the posts of several Canadian/Australian/European kids on Newgrounds accurately represents the beliefs and knowledge of their nations as a whole.

I'm generally not one to agree with cellar, but the economy doesn't have secret political bias.

America is essentially the financial centre of the world, much like how Switzerland is the secret shadowy financial centre of the world. When large financial institutions in the US start heading for the shitter, it's time for all of us to just run away and hide somewhere and not come out until things get better.

At 9/22/08 07:13 PM, Musician wrote: See this is my problem. You're assuming that the posts of several Canadian/Australian/European kids on Newgrounds accurately represents the beliefs and knowledge of their nations as a whole.

I knew it. You put absolutely no effort into understanding the context of the argument before you came in here as you always do and started talking trash. As is always true, you haven't addressed the topic whatsoever.

Have a nice day.

First of all, I know that the world depends on the U.S. for technology and economy, and a decrease in productivity of the U.S. will undoubtedly affect the globe negatively.

Now, on to something I'll probably be shot down for for having a brainwashed Liberal bias. What else is new?

Cellar, these anti-Americans we speak of and yourself have more in common regarding each other's countries than both sides would care to admit. They root for the downfall of the U.S. while dismissing their own nation's problems, yet I have yet to see you admit some of the problems of the U.S. while you do nothing but show them the strength of the U.S. Economy and its' technological advances(which I side with you on). They don't like to admit their nation's troubles if the U.S. stumbles down the road so long as the U.S. is taken down, and you see no need to admit the wrongdoings and mistakes of the U.S. because such mistakes are either blown out of proportion by the Liberal media and it's fact-less bias or just all lies by the anti-Americans. These people who want the U.S. to fall probably already KNOW that their nation depends on the U.S. but just aren't going to admit it. Then again, who DOES like to admit that their country is dependent, imperfect, and so on and so forth? Not many people, for pride gets in the way.

Ultimately, what I'm trying to say here is that I'm not anti-American; I just want to address my own country's problems, no matter their size, more so than other nations because first of all, I live in America, not over there. And second of all, I know that the world depends on the U.S. and whether people are aware of it or not, it makes no difference.

At 9/22/08 07:33 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: I knew it. You put absolutely no effort into understanding the context of the argument before you came in here as you always do and started talking trash. As is always true, you haven't addressed the topic whatsoever.

Have a nice day.

He said: If Europeans vote based on whats best for them, why would they vote towards the downfall of the US?
You said: Because they think that the downfall of the US would benefit them because they're uninformed and blinded completely by their bias.
I said: What evidence are you basing this assumption off of?
You said: My evidence is several people who posted on this board who are from Europe and are uninformed/biased. This backs my claim that Europeans in general are uninformed/biased.

im too racist to vote in a black pres.
There i finally said it.