Seems to me if we pullout now, all those terrorists over there would mark that date on their calendar and (even if you don't agree with the reasons why we're over there) then all that time, money, people we put into our efforts would mean nothing. Just like Carloseus said, it'd be another Vietnam where Saigon falls the day we leave. I guess you could say we have pride as Americans cause I know I do. If we ran away now, that'd be some pussy shit. Anyway... the big dogs gotta eat:D
holy crap. day two and there are already 3 pages, which makes it impossible to answer everyone here.
its not american pride, its the message behind it. they will defeat us if we retreat. the world will know that if you keep it up enough, we will eventually leave and try to forget about it. what does that do for dictators and madmen that run other countries? that we will surrender if it drags on too long? what purpose did our soldiers fight and die for?
as fudlow stated, there will be a vacuum of power and terrorists will wait for the day we leave. they havoc and destruction will break loose. the lives we lost or that the iraqis lost will have nothing on what will happen. the beheadings they show us of our own people will seem like walks in the park compared to the horror they will unleash.
i dont remember who called bush a war mongrel, but if he is, than so am i. hell, call me hitler. i dont care. what i know is that somethings were needed to be done and bush was the only one in the country who had the balls to carry out with it, despite the popularity he knew he would lose. and if that wasnt enough, americans vote for him again! imagine that. remember that WWII and even the civil war were unpopular. the presidents of those times were becoming unpopular fast, until of course the war was won. but this war is likely to take even more than just a few years. its a war on terror, how do you fight terror, an idea?
fudlow is right again, there is much to be lost if we merely retreat. billions of dollars that people complain have gone to the war. if we stay and tough it out longer than we will at least eventually establish iraq and trade will bring that money back. but if we pull out and the system falls apart (as we know it will at this time) then we will loose all the money and all the lives lost would be for nothing.
would you guys do me a favor? go to blockbuster, or netflix, and get a movie, actually two. Rambo 1 and 2. that'll show you the message to be learned if you tough it out during the killing and explosions.
there will be a vacuum of power and terrorists will wait for the day we leave. they havoc and destruction will break loose. the lives we lost or that the iraqis lost will have nothing on what will happen. the beheadings they show us of our own people will seem like walks in the park compared to the horror they will unleash.
nothing of it happened before the invasion of the US troops in Iraq. Some people died, yeah, but there was balance. There are 2 factions in Iraq in case u dont know that are hostile to each other. Saddam, as bad as he may have been, managed to keep balance between them and prevent a civil war. The puppet government assigned by the US doesnt know how to do anything but to give the oil to the american/british companies, thus the explosions etc. The reason so many people have died so far, is the american invasion.
was the only one in the country who had the balls to carry out with it, despite the popularity he knew he would lose.
actually Bush knew he wouldnt be able to get elected again (from ur law as Mutton mentioned in another thread i think) so he did what he could to get even more rich. Fahrenheit 9/11 had enough proof about it. 9/11 made him rich and Iraq even more rich. Sure suited him for the time he retired from presidenthood, dont you think?
remember that WWII and even the civil war were unpopular. the presidents of those times were becoming unpopular fast, until of course the war was won.
dont mix such things up, you only make yourself look stupid. Invading another country for economical reasons is more like what Germany did in WWII, theres nothing "righteous" about it. The civil war was a civil war, nothing to do with outside forces either. So stop comparing an apple with an orange, its just not possible. The "war" was supposed to be won long ago in Iraq too. Know why there are still rebels there fighting? Cause they want their country free. If someone came and took over your country would you not fight? I think yes. But with your logic you'd be a terrorist.
if we stay and tough it out longer than we will at least eventually establish iraq and trade will bring that money back. but if we pull out and the system falls apart (as we know it will at this time) then we will loose all the money and all the lives lost would be for nothing.
you already lost. Since the companies cant manage to bring the oil out cause of the civil war and the rebellion (sort of) going on there, you cant do what you wanted when you got there in the first place. You cant force someone to respect the government you assigned in there, thats why they all fail. And by executing Saddam, he became the hero, and everyone else the criminal (in the eyes of the people at least).
I'm telling you again, a war for the oil isnt a war against terror. there werent any terrorists in Iraq. There werent any weapons of mass destruction. Only oil that was about to be traded with Europeans in Euro. Which means a massive economical hit to the US, thus they rushed to include Iraq into the "campaign against terror". Think logically and u'll get the point. If not then ur probably unable to think.
would you guys do me a favor? go to blockbuster, or netflix, and get a movie, actually two. Rambo 1 and 2. that'll show you the message to be learned if you tough it out during the killing and explosions.
hahahaha. People always told me there are people there that thought of it that way but i didnt believe them. You do know Rambo never existed, dont you? Its just an action film, dont try to "get messages" from it. Its like getting a message from Chronicles of Riddick.
Anyway, since u liked 300 so much i'll make a comparison (explaining why too) to make it easier for you to notice:
300 (or 1000, however you prefer it): Iraqi - they tried to protect their country, and once occupied they kept fighting against the odds.
Persians - US, Brittish and the troops of all the other countries that moved there to grab something they had no right to. Invaders that if justice exists somewhere will have to be driven out.
as weird as it may seem, i agree to a certain degree, massively pulling out the troups would be certain colapse of the country.
the only way to redeem the enormous mistakes made there would be to try built up the country for the people that live there (thats gonna take a long time, allot of resources, and even more people, if its at all possible)
The problem here though is, as earlier stated, that the Iraqi's don't want the US there. It doesn't work to just "set up" governments and then hope that it works, especially not in countries whose views of the world differ so widely from the views of their occupants. Samehow the US has to improve their reputation over there. Don't ask me how though, with opponents denouncing America around every corner and suicide bombers blowing themselves up every day.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
And why is Wikipedia is not acceptable as a source in schools if it is so reliable?
Doesn't matter. My point is that if you can't disprove it, then don't talk. I invited you to do so, previously, and I'm still waiting for some more credible source to disprove it. You can argue the possibility of it having misinformation, all you want, but it doesn't matter when it presents the right information. But just to humor you, schools don't accept it, because they don't want to bother examining the credibility of sources, unless the cited information (you know, the kind that Doppelganger isn't using?) is outright wrong.
Quote from "Equinox" »
There are some flags here and there, but they really don't mean anything, I've seen pages with nothing wrong on them flagged, too. It's unreliable. It's a good overview source, but a source to use in an argument - no. In fact, one source is never enough. If Wiki is the only source you can find...
Then you aren't paying attention to what the flags are for or you just aren't paying attention to what's in the article. But either way, I don't care, because my source still isn't wrong. Again, if it's not a good source to argue with, then prove me wrong! You fail to see the point of an argument. The point is for you to disprove me, and all you're spewing probability at me.
Quote from "Equinox" »
I just watched an American movie from History channel on 1812. Americans could hardly show any opposition. They won due to British stupidity.
Right...cuz someone actually won the war of 1812. No one won the War of 1812. In fact, there were equal losses on either side. Britain threw their best commanders at America, and it worked to their advantage when it came to the invasion of Canada, which failed because of British tactics. However, when Britain tried to invade, they got annihilated. And their plan to pit the Indians against America failed too, cuz we kicked their asses as well. Not to mention the Battle of New Orleans, where Britain launched a full-scale invasion and Andrew Jackson pumped lead up all of their asses. But the War of 1812 is besides the point. And it has nothing to do with the Iraq War.
Quote from "Equinox" »
Exactly. 4 years, and Americans achieved nothing, only wasted billions on God knows what
That's a joke, right? By capturing Saddam, we ended a regime in which tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis were murdered in the sake of politics. I've already gave a huge synopsis of Saddam and the damage he did in the "September 11 was fake" thread. Just search for it. I'm not going to reiterate this.
Quote from "Equinox" »
My nation is too weak to particitpate in Iraq, lol. We don't even have natural gas of our own. Except I live in USA.
What country are you from, exactly? In the face of stupid (doppel), I forgot my manners when addressing someone else.
Quote from "carloseus" »
there are historical facts that relate to politics, though. those can be objective and we can look into them without having to see everyone's personal opinion on this matter. Its more like "this happened there, at that time". To find out why it usually comes to you (and to make it look convincing) since personal opinions (and thinking) play a major role in it.
Politics is derived directly and completely from history. If there wasn't that, then what would politicians have to argue about?
Quote from doppelganger »
wait let me type some random stuff on wiki and present it to you as a source.
read the post above you.
Still not listening. Unless you have a more credible source that disproves mine, then don't fight it. Because as far as the mechanics of debate works, you can't make a good point, without disproving my point.
Quote from "doppelganger" »
in my country it is GOLF my mistake.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that people in your country were illiterate. Maybe you should tell us what country you're from now, so I can slander your country. Come on man, I just said your people can't read. Why don't you tell me what country you're from so I can verbally abuse you from the historical perspective of your own country.
Quote from "doppel" »
did i ever said america is evil? learn to read.
Seems like you couldn't tell before, but I can definitely read better than you. You can't even spell "surprise". But you really think you didn't say our government was evil? How about this:
Quote from "doppel" »
(yep thats right the us army fights for an evil governement)
Bam. You're done, son. You are no longer, nor have you ever been credible, or right. And don't bother trying to edit your post, as I would assume that a jackass like you would do that. I am telling you this cuz your shit is timestamped.
Quote from "doppel" »
i take it you asking where i live was just for arguments sake
Well, this is an argument. I figured I'd just go with the flow, you know. Unlike you. You can't even stay on point.
Quote from "doppel" »
, smart of me not to tell you because your lame counterargument would've bored me to sleep.
Actually, that gives me an idea of why you aren't making coherent points of your own. When you fell asleep, you must have rolled your head around on the keyboard. I don't think there's any other why you could spout this bullshit argument, that is filled with bullshit false information, which you still haven't cited.
Quote from "doppel" »
do you really think i care if some child doesnt believe me?
Ouch, that hurts man. For a person who can't even spell or punctuate, you're really one to talk about maturity. Even if I was a child, you have more to worry about than me, because nobody believes you. Except for that autistic kid, probably. You know, the one you have so much in common with?
yea because every person who doesnt agree with you must believe in a 9/11 conspiracy.
Now allow me to use the same counterpoint that you did. Except mine will be more acceptable, since I said anything like that. Now, where exactly did I post that everyone who doesn't agree with me is a 9/11 conspirator? Please, tell me. Cuz if I did, that would bring me down to your level. And nobody wants to be there.
Quote from "doppel" »
shoots himself through the head.
I really hope you would. By the way, you didn't even use punctuation to signify your emote. You're even bad at talking in computer jargin. Is there anything that you don't fail at, besides being stupid?
Quote from "doppel" »
to your question, cant you read?
If I couldn't read, do you think I would be able to form coherent responses to your bullshit statements and questions (which are not coherent)?
Quote from "fingolfin" »
In general, there's no hate between the people. Its what each government does that pisses everyone off.
As it should be. Because nobody likes sweeping generalizations.
Quote from "doppel" »
yea i can see that, just for the record he did attack me personaly first, and you know what they say: "what comes around goes around"
Yah damned right I attacked you first, because I started this thread to encourage intelligent discussion. Then you come in here with your stupid, uncited, "supposedly factual", argument. You didn't even say it was your opinion. You stated that bullshit as fact.
And the phrase, "what goes around comes around", doesn't work in this situation. This is because I'm not flinging bullshit lies at you. In order for it to work, we'd both have to be flinging bullshit, and I know that I am more right than you, and anyone with a functioning brain knows I'm more right than you.
Quote from "doppel" »
im not talking about us or british (italian,..) forces, but to actually ask help from countries opposed to the war in the first place.
Hah, so you're italian. Okay, I'd just like to start off by saying Mussolini. So don't act all high and mighty. By the way, when you said that you're smart for not telling me where you're from, I guess that means you have to call yourself stupid now, now that you said you're Italian.
Anyways, to address your plan. It wouldn't work. If you were watching any of those news channels that you claim to watch, you'd know that Bush did that already, and basically everyone pulled out after no WMDs were found. No one is going to fight now, anyways.
Quote from "doppel" »
it would sent a massive message to the people in the country that america isnt the bad guy perse (wich they kinda are, so it wont be easy), and that the "whole" world is strongly against the terrorists that now inhabitate the country.
People were calling America the bad guy long before the Iraq War. They called the U.S. evil for fighting the Vietnam War and the Korean War, but nobody dared call China or Russia bad, basically because they won in the end. They called America evil for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which was justified by the fact that there were fewer casualties as a result. Again, I can pull up a previous argument specifically about the Japan campaign, from the "September 11 was fake" thread.
(im surprices not any, as far as i know, american soldiers or reporters where abducted).
Attention! Everyone! I now, again, have irrefutable evidence that he indeed is a terrible debater and is stupid. Here is a source, which Doppel still fails to use:
Notice the time stamp is 2005, and the author says that kidnapping began the year before. You're dumb as hell. Over 200 people were kidnapped over the course of one year.
America has spent close to 400 billion dollars. You do the math. And multiple bills were passed specifically for reconstruction. So don't give Britain the pat on the back.
iraq also needs a strong army for itself (a bit hard when the army was utterly defeated by the invading forces), then a steadily retreat would be possible (if it ever would be possible)
Oh my god, your entire plan has been presented and executed already. You definitely don't watch the news enough. At least a quarter of the money spent on Iraq went to training an Iraqi army. Also, who would be stupid enough to employ the same soldiers that worked under Saddam's regime? I can't believe you'd even suggest recycling defeated armies. A C average president is smart enough not to even consider that. Just think of where that puts you.
Seems to me if we pullout now, all those terrorists over there would mark that date on their calendar and (even if you don't agree with the reasons why we're over there) then all that time, money, people we put into our efforts would mean nothing.
Seems that way to everyone else too. But these current methods will never work. And there was a big positive that resulted from the war. A genocidal dictator was taken out of power.
I guess you could say we have pride as Americans cause I know I do. If we ran away now, that'd be some pussy shit. Anyway... the big dogs gotta eat
Hell yes! *high five*
Quote from "carloseus" »
its not american pride, its the message behind it. they will defeat us if we retreat.
That definitely is pride involved. Because the U.S. would be heralded as a bitch if we just skeedaddled out of there.
Quote from "carloseus" »
i dont remember who called bush a war mongrel
I dont know who it was, but they definitely used the wrong word. The appropriate term is war monger. A mongrel is another term for a mixed-breed dog.
Quote from "carloseus" »
remember that WWII and even the civil war were unpopular. the presidents of those times were becoming unpopular fast, until of course the war was won.
This war isn't even symbolic in the same way that WWII or the Civil War were anymore. It's just about not bending to terrorists.
Quote from "carloseus" »
but this war is likely to take even more than just a few years. its a war on terror, how do you fight terror, an idea?
Fighting a word is dumb as hell and is about as promising an idea as the war on drugs, which failed miserably, by the way. So if one cannot even stop people from smoking crack, then what would make them think that they could stop people from terrorizing others.
Quote from "carloseus" »
would you guys do me a favor? go to blockbuster, or netflix, and get a movie, actually two. Rambo 1 and 2. that'll show you the message to be learned if you tough it out during the killing and explosions.
That is a terrible idea. And it is a prime example of propaganda. The idea of one American defeating the entire army of Northern Vietnam? That's a load of crap.
Doesn't matter. My point is that if you can't disprove it, then don't talk. I invited you to do so, previously, and I'm still waiting for some more credible source to disprove it. You can argue the possibility of it having misinformation, all you want, but it doesn't matter when it presents the right information. But just to humor you, schools don't accept it, because they don't want to bother examining the credibility of sources, unless the cited information (you know, the kind that Doppelganger isn't using?) is outright wrong.
To me it matters. And I can talk all I want, from what I recall, you aren't really a moderator around here to tell me when to stop talking.
I wonder what a "credible" source to discredit wikipedia can possibly be? It's just my personal experience with that thing.
I really don't like cited discussions. I also don't like when people bring up quotes of philosophers to prove their point. Because then, it's not the people talking, but all those philosophers and all the people in wikipedia, not YOU.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Then you aren't paying attention to what the flags are for or you just aren't paying attention to what's in the article. But either way, I don't care, because my source still isn't wrong. Again, if it's not a good source to argue with, then prove me wrong! You fail to see the point of an argument. The point is for you to disprove me, and all you're spewing probability at me.
And why is it me not paying attention to the flags instead of you not checking the information? My point is not to disprove you. My point is that citing doesn't exactly prove anything. How about two independent sources about the same thing that disagree? How will you know which one is right? Just how? Your source isn't wrong, but no one knows how true it is. I never provide sources. I don't know if they are true. I just say what I think based on views of other people in different places.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Right...cuz someone actually won the war of 1812. No one won the War of 1812. In fact, there were equal losses on either side.
They did win the war. According to my history teacher, of course. Americans proved the second time that if British bothers them again, they will kick but. This war also caused the Era of Good Feelings, which was pretty good for US. It also pretty much destroyed the Federalist party, making people calm down about all that division again. It wasn't really that bad. Shame Americans didn't get Canada, though... on the other hand, I would want Canada to exist... lol...
Quote from "muttonchops" »
What country are you from, exactly? In the face of stupid (doppel), I forgot my manners when addressing someone else.
I am from Ukraine. It's bigger then some other Slavic countries, but compared to Russia, it's tiny... It's to the west of Russia... farming place, and a lot better place than Russia to live in. WAS, at least, I don't know how it is now, after the Orange Revolution and all.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that people in your country were illiterate.
I wonder what does this have to do with illiteracy...? In my country's language, it's "Viyna Zalyvu", where "Viyna" stands for war, and "Zalyvu" stands to "of a Gulf".
Quote from "muttonchops" »
You can't even spell "surprise".
Confusing typos with grammar? You should see me typing fast, I make mistakes every 5 words. Most of us are not typists, and most of us are in a hurry.
I really can't talk to this guy anymore. Can we please just ban him? I really hate dumb people, especially when they can't even realize how dumb they really are. Worst of all, he's a dumb foreigner, who, instead of speaking English, he prefers to chew it up and spit it out like gristle or something.
i already gave a source, it was a documentary from panorama bbc, its not a Intraweb source.
Do you take classes in ignoring pertinent information? Or does that come naturally to you? I must admit, you are by far, without a doubt, the dumbest person I have ever had the displeasure of having to prove wrong on this forum. And trust me, there are many dumb asses who have been here.
Quote from "equinox" »
Insult others, and they will likely insult you.
That was sarcasm, you moron.
ah yes grammar the only thing your good at, and that for a foreign language huh?
What does "and that for a foreign language" mean anyways? My point is, that if you can't even form a proper sentence, how do you expect people to believe you're right, let alone intelligent.
it must be PA, besides i thought you could choose and change a governement, silly me.
What the fuck does that even mean?! Not only did you just ignore the fact that I proved you're a hypocrite, you quote something and say nothing related to it? This is the greatest level of buttfuckery ever reached.
funny you asked me first, duh.
What? So you're implying that you asked me where I'm from? As I recall, you never did. But I'll ignore that now.
The reason I asked you is because you can't just jump into a forum and say America is evil, which you did say, then deny, and when I called you on it, you ignored it completely, without getting your ass handed to you when I dig up all the dirt on your homeland. You country affiliated with the Nazis. And your fascist history ain't got shit on America.
feeling sleepy again from your really badly written story, good for you its in a foreign language, or isnt it?
Funny, you've learned enough English to be able to talk to me, but you can't even figure out common English epithets and idiums without mincing words.
is there any point in a discussion when you have to cite everything you say, you can think on your own cant you?
Are all Italians like you? Damn, and my friends were trying to tell me that Italy had cool people there. Man, were they wrong if this is the case. How can you have an intelligent debate if you don't use primary sources? How do you expect to form points about issues without having the information to back you up? If you can't do that, then it wouldn't be a debate. It would be a shit-flinging contest, which you seem to have a lot of experience in.
so?
So? What kind of counter point is that. You're done. Good thing you're saying you left, cuz you just quoted a factfest just so you could put two useless letters together.
you are really bad at math arent you, good you can speak a foreign language without grammar mistakes,...
So...you're saying that 7 billion dollars is more than 400 billion dollars? I would really like another person's opinion, just so I know I'm still living in the same dimension. By the way, English isn't a foreign language for me, you jackass. Don't even bother talking in this language if you're not even going to bother to speak it properly.
oh my god, they need to do it better. oh my god you are as dumb as bush, they are using the defeated army, or whats left of it, the rest are policeman.
You're retarded. I think you're stupidity should be taught in schools, just like the Holocaust, just to teach kids that nobody should be as dumb as you, just as the Holocaust is constantly taught to prevent more genocides.
By the way, you mind giving us an actual source? Saying you watched a documentary isn't gonna do shit for anyone. BBC puts out plenty of documentaries. And since you're still not giving us a name, then no one needs to believe you. Not that they do anyways.
Quote from "equinox" »
To me it matters. And I can talk all I want, from what I recall, you aren't really a moderator around here to tell me when to stop talking.
Great counterpoint. I should change the way I debate, which I might add, has been complimented by debate clubs in all the competitions I have been in, just because you don't like it. That's bullshit. I'm not here to appease you. Nor do I give a shit if I'm a moderator, because you're still ignorant.
You may ask yourself, "why am I so ignorant". I'll tell you. It's because you read my argument, then say you don't like it, and prance around like your opinion is fact. That's a bitch move.
I wonder what a "credible" source to discredit wikipedia can possibly be? It's just my personal experience with that thing.
Maybe if you decided to take the time to bring hard evidence to a discussion, you wouldn't seem like such a dumb bitch. How do you expect to argue over facts, which influence your opinion, if you don't use facts at all?
I really don't like cited discussions. I also don't like when people bring up quotes of philosophers to prove their point. Because then, it's not the people talking, but all those philosophers and all the people in wikipedia, not YOU.
Okay, you can continue your argument by pulling random things out of your ass, but I choose to debate with class. Debating with class involves being informed. How the fuck do you expect someone to make a decision without knowing what the fuck is going on? The point of citing discussions is to show what people should know when considering what people say. If you don't know, then you can't just say random shit. And it certainly doesn't work in America. And if you think it does, then by all means, get rejected by all the colleges you want.
They did win the war. According to my history teacher, of course.
Then your history teacher is wrong. Do you want to know what ended the War of 1812? The Treaty of Ghent. Do you know what the definition of treaty is? A compromise. Who in their right mind would resort to negotiations if they kicked the other country's ass? I rest my case.
This war also caused the Era of Good Feelings, which was pretty good for US. It also pretty much destroyed the Federalist party, making people calm down about all that division again. It wasn't really that bad. Shame Americans didn't get Canada, though... on the other hand, I would want Canada to exist... lol...
You're right about all that. But I must say, I am currently in an AP History class, which I might add, is based on a curriculum formed by a nationwide standard. And in The American Pageant, our standard AP History book, which is very recent, it indeed says that no one won the War of 1812.
I am from Ukraine. It's bigger then some other Slavic countries, but compared to Russia, it's tiny... It's to the west of Russia... farming place, and a lot better place than Russia to live in. WAS, at least, I don't know how it is now, after the Orange Revolution and all.
Eh, I cease to have a purpose of this point. But that's fairly interesting. Never met anyone of Ukrainian descent. In fact, I hardly know anything about Ukraine.
I wonder what does this have to do with illiteracy...? In my country's language, it's "Viyna Zalyvu", where "Viyna" stands for war, and "Zalyvu" stands to "of a Gulf".
That has nothing to do with it. Gulf and Zalyvu are not different in the same way as Gulf and Golf. His was a misspelling. And yet, he claims that everyone in his country spells it this way, which means they're all spelling it wrong, in both Italian and English. Because the Italian word for Gulf is golfo.
Confusing typos with grammar? You should see me typing fast, I make mistakes every 5 words. Most of us are not typists, and most of us are in a hurry.
I speak of typos and grammar as a whole. Not only does he fail to spell words correctly. But he fails to form appropriate English sentences. Even you have to concede that his English is far from decent.
In light of this recent contamination of stupidity, I will take it upon myself to design guidelines for ideal online discussion. When I make them, I suggest you all read it and take it into account when making your point, if you ever wish to get on my level. If you decide to pull idiotic comments out of your ass, I will not hesitate to retaliate, in order to defend the not only the English language, but the sanctity of human progress. Because there is no point in being capable of intelligence if you're not going to say anything intelligent.
Well, I can't do anything about the fact that you completely missed my point...
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Great counterpoint. I should change the way I debate, which I might add, has been complimented by debate clubs in all the competitions I have been in, just because you don't like it. That's bullshit. I'm not here to appease you. Nor do I give a shit if I'm a moderator, because you're still ignorant.
That wasn't a counterpoint. And I didn't ask you to change anything. Debate clubs? I don't see you debating. Insulting, rather. Or, perhaps, you would rather insult less if you want your debating to become visible.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
You may ask yourself, "why am I so ignorant". I'll tell you. It's because you read my argument, then say you don't like it, and prance around like your opinion is fact. That's a bitch move.
I would rather ask, who gave you the right to consider myself more ignorant than yourself?
I don't prance about anything. All that I write is an automatic IMHO. A quote of my prancing, please, since you like citing so much.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Maybe if you decided to take the time to bring hard evidence to a discussion, you wouldn't seem like such a dumb bitch. How do you expect to argue over facts, which influence your opinion, if you don't use facts at all?
I have just told you that for me, the concept of "hard evidence" is nonexistent, and that everything can be fabricated. Why would I provide hard evidence if I have just told you I don't believe in it?
I don't argue over facts. There are no facts for me. If I hear something, I may consider it probable or not probable. That is all. I argue over what people think. One version seems more credible than the other. Another thing that I may suggest is checking neutral sources which will, most likely, post less propaganda. And it doesn't influence my opinion. I do not have an opinion about Iraq at all, because I don't think there is any appropriate information about it. I only know that Americans went to interfiere with Iraq (too much pointing toward it, we are not in 1984, after all), and for me, under most circumstances, that is a nasty thing to do, just as nasty as was Europe's and America's interfierence during the war between the Red and White armies in Russia... here, my opinion ends.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Okay, you can continue your argument by pulling random things out of your ass, but I choose to debate with class. Debating with class involves being informed. How the fuck do you expect someone to make a decision without knowing what the fuck is going on? The point of citing discussions is to show what people should know when considering what people say. If you don't know, then you can't just say random shit. And it certainly doesn't work in America. And if you think it does, then by all means, get rejected by all the colleges you want.
You are not debating if you are insulting. I never heard of debates that consist of insults. Debating with class involves being polite.
I'm not making any decision. I do not believe that a decision about Iraq is possible, I have told you already. But Dopple's version seems more credible to me. Probably because he is not as eccentric as you and doesn't keep insulting instead of debating. And no "hard evidence" that you may provide will convince me of one way or the other. I judge information depending on how it sounds.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Then your history teacher is wrong. Do you want to know what ended the War of 1812? The Treaty of Ghent. Do you know what the definition of treaty is? A compromise. Who in their right mind would resort to negotiations if they kicked the other country's ass? I rest my case.
I would expect an AP History student to understand indirect statements. Yes, the war was ended by an armistice agreement. Not exactly a compromise, nothing changed, no land changed hands, no one said anything about impressment, they just ended the war and went off. But were the Americans at an advantage at the end? Yes, they were, you yourself agreed. That is the real winning. I certainly wasn't talking about a technical win, I suggested that you would understand that.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Eh, I cease to have a purpose of this point. But that's fairly interesting. Never met anyone of Ukrainian descent. In fact, I hardly know anything about Ukraine.
If you met many Russians, you probably have met a Ukrainian. Most Ukrainians often refer to themselves as Russians, because a lot of them speak Russian and hardly know Ukrainian, but I know both, and I like Ukrainian better, it is known as the second most melodical language in the world after Italian... anyway, Russians and Ukrainians do differ, but I'm afraid my opinion will be biased, so I'll stop there. )))
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Because the Italian word for Gulf is golfo.
It appears that "Golf" is a mix of two languages, then.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
I speak of typos and grammar as a whole. Not only does he fail to spell words correctly. But he fails to form appropriate English sentences. Even you have to concede that his English is far from decent.
Again, why should he form appropriate English sentences? I think his English is much more decent than yours. I prefer people that write choppy to people that write dirty.
Well, I can't do anything about the fact that you completely missed my point...
Trust me, I didn't miss your point. I just don't care about how you feel about Wikipedia.
That wasn't a counterpoint. And I didn't ask you to change anything. Debate clubs? I don't see you debating. Insulting, rather. Or, perhaps, you would rather insult less if you want your debating to become visible.
Then what was it? And you obviously did tell me to change the way I debate. You told me not to use Wikipedia. You're wrong there too. And I definitely don't care if I insult you in the process of making my points.
How am I not debating? Do you even know what a debate is? Because if you don't then you should know how wrong you are.
Please count the number of insults I have made and the number of points I have made. You'll see the ratio finds the number of points to be far greater. So if you can't see, then you shouldn't even be talking, because you wouldn't even be capable of extrapolating your head out of your own ass at that rate.
I would rather ask, who gave you the right to consider myself more ignorant than yourself?
You say that as if I am somehow ignorant myself. In which case, you're wrong. Because all you're doing is talking about your feelings and how I shouldn't debate by these methods.
I don't prance about anything. All that I write is an automatic IMHO. A quote of my prancing, please, since you like citing so much.
Why the fuck would you say that you're prancing? Like you're just going to announce your every action. I'm using visuals in my writing to show just how pretentious you were being.
I have just told you that for me, the concept of "hard evidence" is nonexistent
So...if I place a stack of papers in front of you, in the middle of a debate, where the issue was whether or not the Holocaust happened, and this stack of papers had personal accounts as well as pictures and international reports, that say that the Holocaust happened, is that stack of papers non-existent?
And if you, indeed, believe that all that shit is fabricated, then how the hell do you have a debate. You can't just say, "Well, I don't believe it" and walk out. You would be saying that everyone who said any of the information I presented, may be lying. Now, you can be as schizophrenic as you want to be. But I am not paranoid, therefore, I can trust third-party, credible sources. Arguing out of simple paranoia that someone may be lying to you is bullshit. So, take the evidence I have presented to you, and either disprove it and stop whining, or just leave. You can't have a factual discussion if you don't believe in facts.
Why would I provide hard evidence if I have just told you I don't believe in it? I don't argue over facts.
So, hard evidence is a figment of your imagination then, right? Sort of like a flying spaggheti monster or something.
There is no resolution to a debate/argument/(whatever other synonym you want to pull out of your ass), if you can't find certain things to be true. Cuz if you don't believe in facts, then you're in the wrong thread, my (not) friend.
There are no facts for me. If I hear something, I may consider it probable or not probable. That is all. I argue over what people think.
So, if you only argue over people's thoughts, that makes you an imperialist. That makes you no better than the U.S. government, who impose the belief that democracy works for everyone. That makes you no better than the terrorists, who impose their religious beliefs on all others and kill the ones who don't accept it. If we were talking about Socrates, Voltaire, or any other fucking philosopher, then the concept of fact can come into question. But other than that, if you can't accept that, then don't debate here, because we find the concept of fact to be true.
One version seems more credible than the other. Another thing that I may suggest is checking neutral sources which will, most likely, post less propaganda. And it doesn't influence my opinion.
If you don't believe in facts, then how can you find a neutral source? Bam, you contradicted yourself. And if you don't incorporate facts into your opinion, you'd be just as well off as saying, "the eggs are purple because seafoam is made of cheese which came from planet penis". And that sounds like something Doppelganger would say.
I do not have an opinion about Iraq at all, because I don't think there is any appropriate information about it.
If you don't have an opinion about Iraq, then get the fuck out of this thread. The whole idea is for you to share your position, which is another word for opinion, mind you. And you just said that everything you said is "IMHO" which I'm assuming means your opinion, basically. And if everything you said, including the things you said about America and Iraq, are your opinion, then you just lied about saying that you don't have an opinion on Iraq.
I do not have an opinion about Iraq at all, because I don't think there is any appropriate information about it. I only know that Americans went to interfiere with Iraq (too much pointing toward it, we are not in 1984, after all), and for me, under most circumstances, that is a nasty thing to do, just as nasty as was Europe's and America's interfierence during the war between the Red and White armies in Russia... here, my opinion ends.
You just said that you don't have an opinion about Iraq. Then you said you think that America shouldn't be in Iraq. That's an opinion about Iraq, you dumbass.
And if you know that America went to interfere with Iraq, that means that you do believe in fact, (the fact that America interfered with Iraq) in which case, you've contradicted yourself AGAIN!
Do you enjoy contradicting yourself? Because I enjoy watching you do it.
You are not debating if you are insulting. I never heard of debates that consist of insults. Debating with class involves being polite.
Oh, I definitely can insult and debate at the same time, bitch. See? I just stated that I disagreed with you, forming the foundation of a debate. Then, I called you a bitch, which is an insult. Therefore, I insulted you and debated at the same time. What are the odds of that?! (in case you didn't notice, that last sentence was rhetorical, since you fail to understand common American literary tools).
You know what else debating with class involves? Not being a retard.
Speaking of tools, I wonder what Doppelganger is going to say next..Meh, probably nothing logical.
I'm not making any decision. I do not believe that a decision about Iraq is possible, I have told you already. But Dopple's version seems more credible to me. Probably because he is not as eccentric as you and doesn't keep insulting instead of debating. And no "hard evidence" that you may provide will convince me of one way or the other. I judge information depending on how it sounds.
He's not as eccentric? I just read a portion of his post, and he's "lolling" and he even called me a "fucking sad baby". Not that I'm offended, but if you think that's not eccentric then something is wrong with you. But don't be surprised, because I'm not.
I judge information depending on how it sounds.
Well, apparantly, you prefer things that sound nice, so let me provide a simple counterexample:
You said that America is interfering with Iraq. And you believe it is fact, as you said that you knew it. So, if I said, "Those fucking Americans got into Iraq's fucking business!", does that make me any less right? No, because "fucking" is an adjective with an empty meaning that only serves to further a negative connotation. It does not modify facts. And I only used that example because you agreed that you knew it to be true, despite your belief that there is no such thing as fact.
I would expect an AP History student to understand indirect statements. Yes, the war was ended by an armistice agreement. Not exactly a compromise, nothing changed, no land changed hands, no one said anything about impressment, they just ended the war and went off.
But if America did win the war, like you said, they would have forced more conditions out of Britain and Canada. The concept of victory in this scenario isn't factual, its opinionated. There is no clear-cut victory, because no one was overall, defeated. Now, I can accept it as your opinion. But then again, you basically said you only believed it because that's what your history teacher taught. So why don't you accept my AP history teacher's teachings or my AP history books? Or are they just figments of your imagination?
But were the Americans at an advantage at the end? Yes, they were, you yourself agreed. That is the real winning. I certainly wasn't talking about a technical win, I suggested that you would understand that.
Everyone was at an advantage. Canada had increased patriotism because they held off the American invasion, the Brits were happy because they got 6000 slaves from American merchant ships, and America was happy because they stopped Britain from taking them over again. But now that you say it wasn't a technical win, I can understand what you're saying. The War of 1812 was, in essence, a win-win war. Everyone was happy. Except the Indians, because they got proverbially raped.
It appears that "Golf" is a mix of two languages, then.
But last I checked, we weren't speaking Ital-English or some wierd hybrid language. We're speaking clear-cut English (well...maybe not clear-cut in Doppelganger's case, but he has established that he is not speaking a hybrid language, because I have not needed a dictionary to translate anything he says, except for the Italian term for Gulf). Even if we were speaking in Italian, he's still wrong.
Again, why should he form appropriate English sentences? I think his English is much more decent than yours. I prefer people that write choppy to people that write dirty.
Well, if he's going to have a debate, then how is anyone going to think he's intelligent if he can't even spell simple words like Gulf and surprise and a lot (which he spelled allot) and understand the difference in usage of then vs. than.
You're saying that this guy speaks better English than I do? Hahahahaha! I just showed this thread to my friends, my parents (who are heads of the copy editors desk), and my girlfriend, and they all laughed hysterically. I hope you don't mean that his grammar is more correct than mine, because two foreigners arguing with a person who has an A average in AP English and AP Latin (giving further understanding to the English language) are definitely not on my level of reading comprehension.
i hope for the sake of humanity you DO realize how dumb you are, and just put an end to your shit.
btw how is a foreigner for your country not good at speaking english worse then a native not good at speaking english?
oh and nice work fascist.
Why realize how dumb, supposedly, I am, when you can't even tell me why I am.
And for someone who was attempting to attack me about how I supposedly only criticize your grammar (as well as not even reply to anything else I said, because doing so would ruin your argument that I am only a grammar criticizer), you sure did yourself a favor by criticizing my grammar. Now who is attacking who over grammar?
That aside, if you really think you speak better English than I do, then start by capitalizing the first letter of all your sentences, stop using acronyms for easy phrases like "by the way", spell surprise, Gulf, and a lot right, and stop using multiple exclamation points. That's not proper English to write.
And I implore you, once again, please tell me why you think I am a fascist. Because, last I checked, I was presenting an argument (as well as a couple of insults, because how can I pay attention to your bullshit if I'm not having fun), as opposed to someone like Mussolini, who lead your country (under the context of your previous statement, I am still assuming that you're from Italy), as opposed to trying to reason with others, resorted to kill people who didn't share the same beliefs as him. So, unless you pull a skeleton out of my closet, don't accuse me of being a murdering imperialist (which is a fascist, in case you didn't understand that).
do you actually try to win over anyone on these forums with your ramblings?
Well, I can assure you I'm not trying to win you over. Because I'd be ashamed to be on the same side of an argument as you. But so far, I've done a better job of proving you wrong than you have done with proving me wrong (which you still need to do, if you hope to have people perceive you as being justified in your opinion).
im not talking about us or british (italian,..) forces
That is you stating that either "us" is Italian, or the British are. And, last I checked, the British are from Britain, not Italy.
boring, is this how you win an argument? how sad.
Better than your strategy, which basically involves you saying, "No, you're wrong!" And then you go ahead to not explain. But you are right, this is sad. I'm having to resort to discussion with a retard. I'd get more positive results by bashing my head against a concrete wall. But alas, I'm bored.
what part of "wrong" do you not understand? if you even cant understand such a simple thing then how do you suspect to understand anything about debating? wow you must have allot of friends if you cant even debate without needing constant information to back you up.
Well, I don't understand what it feels like to be wrong, as I am almost never wrong, unlike you. And I definitely don't need to know what it feels like to be wrong in order to verbally demolish anything you say. And since when do friends have anything to do with being informed? Can anyone interject? Because, last I checked, it didn't. Nor does your argument have anything to do with being right (because, you're not).
did i ever said someone needs to believe me?
i dont care if you believe me or not, and i dont care if i find the source or not or prove you what i have seen.
If you don't need anyone to believe you, then why are you still arguing with me? Last I checked, I was getting PMs of approval for pulling the silk veil off the pile of bullshit that is your argument.
And if you don't care if you find the source, then why were you trying so hard to tell me that it was from BBC?
if the italian word is golfo then how dumb are you for thinking im italian.
Not at all, because as this argument goes, you're the dumb one here. You can't even properly articulate a sentence. You'd be better off to just admit that you made a typo. Equinox is from the Ukraine and even she can spell Gulf right. I know you are lying about how golf is how it is spoken in your country, because the rest of your words are in English.
you dont make sense man, and it shows.
You mean in the same way that your sources don't? You can say I don't make sense at all, but until you explain what you're saying, you're not appealing to anyone. And if you are indeed not trying to appeal to or make anyone believe you, then you should leave the thread, like you said you were going to and let the smarter people discuss the topic at hand.
yes i misspelled Gulf with Golf because thats how its spelled in my country.
And what country are you from? Because you gotta know where yah been before yah know where you're going.
And so, you're admitting that you spelled Gulf wrong, because everyone else in your country spelled it wrong. So, either you're lying, or you're saying that everyone in your country can't spell for shit.
how come your such a fucking sad baby?
Fucking? Your mom? Yes. Sad? Not at all. Baby? Well, your mom can vouch for me that I am certainly not a baby. Boy, I sure turned that insult around. Any more feces you want to throw at me? Or can this thread continue with more intelligent thoughts than that of your own. Well, I'm not going to wait for you. Bye bye.
---
Anyways, well, I think we went to Iraq for the wrong reasons to begin with. However, Bush somehow believed that he would get more support if we he said Saddam was building bombs as opposed to saying that Saddam was murdering his own people.
Now, we are staying in Iraq for the wrong reasons. You get more with honey than with vinegar, and by blowing up homes and shooting suspected terrorists and such, the U.S. government is not going to gain any more friends.
Now, the solution that the withdrawal plan offers us is to step back and seek a new approach, like negotations. But no, Bush don't like no negotations, cuz he's a spoiled retard from West Bumblefuck. Only once the Democrats took control of Congress did he ever even consider appealing to the people.
Regardless of how long we spend in Iraq, insurgents will step in and overthrow the government. It's inevitable. But to seek compromise with them would bring about a whole lot more positives. How could you call America evil if they're compromising with you? But I consider this war to be more about the spread of capitalism than democracy. Why else would China be supplying insurgents with weapons to fight the U.S.?
this thread has gone completely off-topic. Why not make a flame thread like "who do you think is dumb and why?" and leave some room on those threads for replies that have something to do with the threads topics?
this thread has gone completely off-topic. Why not make a flame thread like "who do you think is dumb and why?" and leave some room on those threads for replies that have something to do with the threads topics?
Ditto. :rolleyes:
Quote from "magik" »
Those bastards killed my uncle.
So, IMO, I say fuck them all, I really could care less about them, nuke them all!
Your uncle went there to kill those people.
Good thing decisions are usually not based on emotions.
Good thing decisions are usually not based on emotions.
one of the reasons Bush Jr stated to explain the attack on Iraq: "this guy (referring to Saddam) tried to kill my father!"
ok, Bush is dumb, but its even more dumb to allow him get elected. twice.
and on
Let's make this short and simple.
Those bastards killed my uncle.
So, IMO, I say fuck them all, I really could care less about them, nuke them all!
I'm not joking either.
... well, its the kind of stupidity that made the USA look like a global terrorist atm and the main reason some simple people considered 9/11 as a natural retaliation and "a taste of your own medicine". Ofc i dont approve such actions, but if you count the numbers of innocent people all around the globe that died due to bombings and US-sponsored dictatorships they'll be way more.
whats most sad is that the people that actually pay for it with their lives are innocent while the truly guilty people are still alive and they grow rich from it.
Trust me, I didn't miss your point. I just don't care about how you feel about Wikipedia.
I wasn't talking about Wikipedia at all, lol.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Then what was it? And you obviously did tell me to change the way I debate. You told me not to use Wikipedia. You're wrong there too. And I definitely don't care if I insult you in the process of making my points.
A reminder. No, I "obviously" didn't tell you to do anything. Just reminded you that Wikipedia is Wikipedia. And I can as well say that you are wrong, too.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
How am I not debating? Do you even know what a debate is? Because if you don't then you should know how wrong you are.
You are insulting. Debate doesn't include insults. If it does, it isn't a debate at all, it's flame.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Please count the number of insults I have made and the number of points I have made. You'll see the ratio finds the number of points to be far greater. So if you can't see, then you shouldn't even be talking, because you wouldn't even be capable of extrapolating your head out of your own ass at that rate.
It doesn't matter, they all get lost in the process. If you want your points heard, type less insults. Why am I noticing only the insults? Why is no one talking to you? Because you are being rude, because you insult, because you do not give room for another opinion at all. None of that has anything to do with normal debating. Debate leads to conclusion. Does this leads to any conclusion? No. Again, don't tell me whether or not to talk, you are a nobody here, just another user like me, and we both have the equal right to chat away.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
You say that as if I am somehow ignorant myself. In which case, you're wrong. Because all you're doing is talking about your feelings and how I shouldn't debate by these methods.
I didn't say you were ignorant. I don't go around calling people ignorant or stupid simply because I dissagree with them, that is low and immature. All I am doing is replying to your replies to me. My habit is keeping to reply to the end. And I don't have any feelings towards this discussion, except amusement.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Why the fuck would you say that you're prancing? Like you're just going to announce your every action. I'm using visuals in my writing to show just how pretentious you were being.
When I heard the word prancing, I associate it with gloating, and I wasn't gloating, so I said I wasn't prancing. I am the wrong person to use visuals with, English is my worst class ever.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
So...if I place a stack of papers in front of you, in the middle of a debate, where the issue was whether or not the Holocaust happened, and this stack of papers had personal accounts as well as pictures and international reports, that say that the Holocaust happened, is that stack of papers non-existent?
Regarding Holocaust, there are pictures of skinny people which you won't get anywhere easy. Those pictures tell only one thing: there was a group of people, they were starved, and that is horrible. Period. That is all those pictures tell, that is what I believe. Everything else - something someone wrote, for instance, is not direct proof for me. It may relate to something already proven, such as the fact that people were starverd, but writing can be easily fabricated. Especially considering that Jews get privilidges from the Holocaust to this day. There is a group that is interested in this even, and as long as there is, fabrication is always possible.
If you think information is always reliable, you can try reading George Orwell's "1984". It has a lot of interesting stuff about how the Party made people believe whatever they wanted. Exxagerated, of course, but all the same.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
And if you, indeed, believe that all that shit is fabricated, then how the hell do you have a debate. You can't just say, "Well, I don't believe it" and walk out. You would be saying that everyone who said any of the information I presented, may be lying. Now, you can be as schizophrenic as you want to be. But I am not paranoid, therefore, I can trust third-party, credible sources. Arguing out of simple paranoia that someone may be lying to you is bullshit. So, take the evidence I have presented to you, and either disprove it and stop whining, or just leave. You can't have a factual discussion if you don't believe in facts.
If I have a debate, I plan before the debate. I go to the library and to the internet, collect information, see what matches up and doesn't, check what came from where, and decide which sources sound more credible than others, and what information from those sources seems credible. I do a research paper, basically. When I debate, it's not only the factor of the existence of a source, but the factor of the credibility of that source. But it is still a factor of "seems". Is aspartame very bad for you? I came to the conclusion "not really, unless you eat it in tons"... some people came to the opposite conclusion...
Again, don't tell me when to leave or not. I will sit here and have fun with you until you leave yourself or stop addressing me. To insult me has become impossible through my many years of internet arguing.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
So, hard evidence is a figment of your imagination then, right? Sort of like a flying spaggheti monster or something.
Nah, I worship His Shadow and the Teapot. That's why I am so weird.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
So, if you only argue over people's thoughts, that makes you an imperialist. That makes you no better than the U.S. government, who impose the belief that democracy works for everyone. That makes you no better than the terrorists, who impose their religious beliefs on all others and kill the ones who don't accept it. If we were talking about Socrates, Voltaire, or any other fucking philosopher, then the concept of fact can come into question. But other than that, if you can't accept that, then don't debate here, because we find the concept of fact to be true.
I am not comparable to US government, because I am not the one in charge of troops sent to die. I am not comparable to a terrorist, since I do not perform any such actions. My opinion is not based on the majority of opinions. My opinion is based about mixes of different opinions. Your opinion is the same, except you find 2-4 sources here and there, and believe them. I do not impose my beliefs at all. I don't have a strong belief. It is always dangling. It depends on what I see and hear. I don't stick to an opinion too much. If someone in a debate proves that he is correct, I will accept that he is correct, never mind my opinion, truth is more important. This is not a debate. And there is no "we", there is only you, no one here supports you.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
If you don't believe in facts, then how can you find a neutral source? Bam, you contradicted yourself. And if you don't incorporate facts into your opinion, you'd be just as well off as saying, "the eggs are purple because seafoam is made of cheese which came from planet penis". And that sounds like something Doppelganger would say.
I am unalbe to contradit myself, because I speak in associations, making some of my posts losing sense. Please remember that catching something that I have wrote is pointless because I often meant "not exactly that". If that sounds weird, stupid, retarded to you, you are welcome.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
If you don't have an opinion about Iraq, then get the fuck out of this thread. The whole idea is for you to share your position, which is another word for opinion, mind you. And you just said that everything you said is "IMHO" which I'm assuming means your opinion, basically. And if everything you said, including the things you said about America and Iraq, are your opinion, then you just lied about saying that you don't have an opinion on Iraq.
I'm not in this thread for Iraq. I'm in this thread to argue with you. Regarding opinions and stuff, see above paragraph.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
You just said that you don't have an opinion about Iraq. Then you said you think that America shouldn't be in Iraq. That's an opinion about Iraq, you dumbass.
That is an expansion on a limitation, you genius.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Do you enjoy contradicting yourself? Because I enjoy watching you do it.
Good, because then, we are enjoying each other. Let me go on on contradicting myself. Well, I did, in the first few paragraphs.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Oh, I definitely can insult and debate at the same time, bitch. See? I just stated that I disagreed with you, forming the foundation of a debate. Then, I called you a bitch, which is an insult. Therefore, I insulted you and debated at the same time. What are the odds of that?! (in case you didn't notice, that last sentence was rhetorical, since you fail to understand common American literary tools).
I don't think you can. You think you can.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
You know what else debating with class involves? Not being a retard.
The judge of that is not the debater. If he was, then all debates would consist of "bah, I'm right and you are just a retard!".
Quote from "muttonchops" »
He's not as eccentric? I just read a portion of his post, and he's "lolling" and he even called me a "fucking sad baby". Not that I'm offended, but if you think that's not eccentric then something is wrong with you. But don't be surprised, because I'm not.
Perhaps you should start reading your own posts, too. You chose an attacking attitude, he called you "a fucking sad baby". All square. He was relitating.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
You said that America is interfering with Iraq. And you believe it is fact, as you said that you knew it. So, if I said, "Those fucking Americans got into Iraq's fucking business!", does that make me any less right? No, because "fucking" is an adjective with an empty meaning that only serves to further a negative connotation. It does not modify facts. And I only used that example because you agreed that you knew it to be true, despite your belief that there is no such thing as fact.
Your reference is being insulting to the subject, not the person you are "debating" with. That is what I have always be saying. Insult anyone or anything of the topic as long as you want, but never insult the other person that you are talking to.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
But then again, you basically said you only believed it because that's what your history teacher taught. So why don't you accept my AP history teacher's teachings or my AP history books? Or are they just figments of your imagination?
Well, that is interesting there. You see, the fact that your AP teacher said something doesn't mean that if you pass the information along, you will pass it exactly the way it was. Just as it was with my teacher. She never said Am won the war. She said that we proved that we would protect our country. But to me, winning is "having advantage over the other side at the end of the conflict", so I translated it as winning, and that is how I passed it over to you. She never said Am won, but that is how I interpreted her words. Make sense?
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Everyone was at an advantage. Canada had increased patriotism because they held off the American invasion, the Brits were happy because they got 6000 slaves from American merchant ships, and America was happy because they stopped Britain from taking them over again. But now that you say it wasn't a technical win, I can understand what you're saying. The War of 1812 was, in essence, a win-win war. Everyone was happy. Except the Indians, because they got proverbially raped.
Well, I guess our history teacher/History Channel video forgot, as always, to mention the advantages that others gained... that's the difference between CP and AP, I suppose... gah, if it wasn't for me moving from school to school every half of a year, I would be in Honors History now... :rolleyes:
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Even if we were speaking in Italian, he's still wrong.
Well, as he has just told us, he's not Italian. You make too hastly statements. You suggested that I was from France/Britain/Canada, that was also incorrect.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Well, if he's going to have a debate, then how is anyone going to think he's intelligent if he can't even spell simple words like Gulf and surprise and a lot (which he spelled allot) and understand the difference in usage of then vs. than.
Well, everyone speaks on this forum like that (except me and a few people). Even Elfen does. So I don't have a say here, I don't like it when people start a sentence with a lowercase letter, but I won't be going around telling people that, would I? That would be rude to the community.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
You're saying that this guy speaks better English than I do? Hahahahaha! I just showed this thread to my friends, my parents (who are heads of the copy editors desk), and my girlfriend, and they all laughed hysterically. I hope you don't mean that his grammar is more correct than mine, because two foreigners arguing with a person who has an A average in AP English and AP Latin (giving further understanding to the English language) are definitely not on my level of reading comprehension.
I didn't mean anything regarding grammar. I said that his English is decent and yours is not. And your people certainly have a good sense of humor, my mom would freak out if she knew I was writing this.
If you are A in AP of some classes it does not at all mean that people who are not are less smart than you, or have less reading comprehension. And I can give you some reasons to why that is true. My grades in English always jump up and down. I get an A+ once, a C- another time, then an A+ again, all depends on what the heck are they asking me to write an essay on this time... I'm more of a techno person, I'm not good at inventing articulate stuff out of my head, literature was my bad subject even in Ukraine, in fact, especially in Ukraine, probably because essay assignments were even dumber... OK, I digressed seriously here...
Also, my father would tell you that at a job interview, people look at your attitude first and your knowledge - second.
Then why were you making a point out of trying to tell me not to use Wikipedia? But I guess your bigger point was that you don't believe in fact, right?
A reminder. No, I "obviously" didn't tell you to do anything. Just reminded you that Wikipedia is Wikipedia. And I can as well say that you are wrong, too.
A reminder still tells one to do something. You're confusing telling someone to do something, allowing the person to still make a decision, with commanding someone to do something. And who the hell says I need to be reminded that Wikipedia is written by users? I guess that's a failure on your part to realize that I don't give a fuck unless you can prove me wrong, which Doppelganger is under the influence that he is proving me wrong. I use the phrase, "under the influence", because it is obvious that he would have to be smoking shrooms or something to think that he is proving anyone wrong.
You are insulting. Debate doesn't include insults. If it does, it isn't a debate at all, it's flame.
Correction, Debate doesn't "normally" include insults. However, this isn't your CP history class or some town league soccer game where everyone wins and they all give trophies, regardless if they lost or not. This is a forum that doesn't care if I insult you in the process of proving you wrong, so fuck you.
It doesn't matter, they all get lost in the process. If you want your points heard, type less insults.
How can they be lost in the process if they're sitting right in-fucking-front of you? Whoops, there you go, telling me what to do. Should I take that as a reminder or a command...hmm...doesn't matter, I still don't give a shit.
Why is no one talking to you? Because you are being rude, because you insult, because you do not give room for another opinion at all.
If that's what you think, then you were wrong from the get-go. First off, you and Doppelganger are talking to me. That makes you twice as wrong.
Does this leads to any conclusion?
Yes, I retain my reputation as being the flamer who is always right, and Doppelganger gets showed up as the dumb fuck that he is. Not only that, but with the humorous responses that Doppel makes, I can't afford not to laugh.
No. Again, don't tell me whether or not to talk, you are a nobody here, just another user like me, and we both have the equal right to chat away.
Haha. Can't you see I was only reminding you not to talk?
I didn't say you were ignorant. I don't go around calling people ignorant or stupid simply because I dissagree with them, that is low and immature. All I am doing is replying to your replies to me. My habit is keeping to reply to the end. And I don't have any feelings towards this discussion, except amusement.
I said "you say that as if" meaning that you implied that I was ignorant. And you may think that my insulting makes me immature, but last I checked, you were still wrong. So why should I change myself when you can't even beat me in a debate (not saying that you said it, I'm saying that you implied it. If you understood the concept of implications, you'd do a lot better in English and History)?
All I am doing is replying to your replies to me. My habit is keeping to reply to the end. And I don't have any feelings towards this discussion, except amusement.
So, your idea is to just keep talking right? Well, with that idealogy, I'm not surprised that you keep tripping yourself up. And if you're only in it for amusement, then you should join me in laughing at the humorous retorts of Doppelganger.
When I heard the word prancing, I associate it with gloating, and I wasn't gloating, so I said I wasn't prancing. I am the wrong person to use visuals with, English is my worst class ever.
Then that's your fault. The fact that you'd mix up words with different meanings gives further evidence for me to say that you're wrong. How should I accept anything you say, if I have to take into account that you may have mixed up words. In that case, I would not be willing to go to thesaurus.com in order to make sure I'm understand you right. But then again, you wouldn't research for this discussion anyways, giving further reason to believe that you're wrong. And the fact that you're not even on my level of learning tells me that you are either dumber than me, or you are lazy. Either way, that makes you less qualified to debate with me.
I don't care about your opinion about the Holocaust. You'd probably say that you don't have an opinion about that either.
If you think information is always reliable, you can try reading George Orwell's "1984". It has a lot of interesting stuff about how the Party made people believe whatever they wanted. Exxagerated, of course, but all the same.
That's a fiction novel. This is reality. Why should I take a book based on Orwell's perception of "Big Brother"?
If I have a debate, I plan before the debate. I go to the library and to the internet, collect information, see what matches up and doesn't, check what came from where, and decide which sources sound more credible than others, and what information from those sources seems credible. I do a research paper, basically. When I debate, it's not only the factor of the existence of a source, but the factor of the credibility of that source. But it is still a factor of "seems". Is aspartame very bad for you? I came to the conclusion "not really, unless you eat it in tons"... some people came to the opposite conclusion...
Then where's your basic research paper? Because you did tell me previously that you don't research for a debate. And I have already told you that the article of Wikipedia is credible, because you can't prove otherwise. Then you proceeded to say that there is no such thing as fact. And I don't give a flying fuck about aspartame.
I am not comparable to US government, because I am not the one in charge of troops sent to die. I am not comparable to a terrorist, since I do not perform any such actions.
Being the philosopher that you have shown yourself to be, you should not have taken that comment to be so literal. You are trying to tell me that you don't like Wikipedia and was "reminding me" not to use it. Well, you're still trying to thrust your beliefs at me, whether you do it forcefully or leniently. Therefore, it makes you an imperialist. Therefore, it means you have the same mindset as the U.S. government and the terrorists, about your beliefs.
You know what? I'd rather not argue with you anymore. Too far off topic. Plus, this thesis paper sized quote fest is annoying the hell out of me. So, let's just call it a day and humor ourselves with Doppelganger. You can do it politely if you want. But I'd prefer to be insulting. Either way, we can acknowledge that Doppelganger is making less sense by the second.
And for the record, just realize that my insults to you are not authentically hateful. I do it to amuse myself. So, when I curse in my quotations above, just note that I'm only doing it to make a point.
Besides, you're not dumb anyways. You're averagely knowledgeable as far as I can tell. And the fact that you don't react so harshly to my insults makes you seem less irrational, unlike Doppel. So, I'll just finish with Doppel here. Fun debate though. I've got a lot of quoting to go.
Do i have to draw you a picture? maybe you have to "realize" how dumb you are because you totally ignore and forget your own posts.
Not at all. Save your pen and paper for making stick figure drawings of your family and your house in special education class. And you can challenge me if you want, but so far, I haven't contradicted myself one bit. You've just taken everything I have said out of context, because you're not only stupid, but you can't even speak proper fluent English.
how is me replying to you saying you are dumb for not telling me why i am dumb making me more dumb then you are?
Whoo boy, that's a tongue twister right there. Careful, you might obscure your point. Oh wait! You already have. By the way, I never called myself dumb. I called you dumb. Don't understand why I just said that? (you saying you are dumb). Also, why in God's name would I call myself dumb for not telling you why you're dumb? Besides, that's wrong in two ways, cuz I definitely did tell you why you're dumb. I said you are like an autistic kid. The fact that you have the same symptoms as him, socially, then I have further reason to believe you are autistic (I don't, I just think you're flat out retarded). And that's when you called me dumb for saying you're as dumb as an autistic kid.
and then you have the guts to ask me to tell you why you are? lol
In America, that phrasing gives it a positive connotation.
do i have to sum up every reply you made only filled with criticism about my grammar? people can read you know.
The problem with that is that in no post did I only criticize your grammar. You see, I called you stupid for the things you say, as well as how you say it. It's a 2 for 1 deal. Better cash in while the sale is hot!
people can read you know.
But you're not one of them.
where did i criticize your grammar in this post?
You didn't. You criticized me for making fun of your grammar. But I still don't care.
this not only shows your complete lack of arguments in your posts, it also shows you trying to make me the bad guy about not argumenting.
If I have such a complete lack of "arguements" in my posts, then why are you providing (bad) counterpoints for everything I say? You can't have a counterpoint without a point to counter.
and it shows you jumping to conclusions, like in almost every of your posts, and i burned you on your own "main" argument;
Oh, you mean when you told me that you slept in the process of reading my post? Ouch, really got burned there. I gotta remember to stay off the grill next time XD
But onto my next point, I fail to see how I'm jumping to conclusions. An example of that would be, "the sky is blue, so the moon must be made of cheese!" See how there was no transition in thinking? However, my replies have been very methodical in that I respond to your statements contextually, as I can simply read it, because of your poor grammar. And all my assumptions in this thread, about you, have related to what you have said. Feel free to prove me wrong. But I highly doubt you will.
Other than the talk of you saying that I'm wrong (without stating reasons) and saying that I'm dumb, as well as saying that you were sleeping. I remain unscathed.
[/quote] my poor english (even worse then a grammar mistake, because you manage to completely misinterpretend an "english" sentence proving me you arent intelligent).
also funny you replyed to the wrong post for your own convenience.[/QUOTE]
How can you prove that I am not intelligent because I got the wrong idea from your poorly formed sentence. If you said "I fucked you", you can't say that I took it out of context just because you actually meant "I loved you".
do you feel good trying to make other people look bad, and you even have to lie to do so too.
I love making people look bad. It makes me look better. But at this point, since I'm so perfect (at least in comparison to you), it's more about maintaining my reputation.
Let's ignore the fact that I haven't lied thus far. Even if I did lie, if you can't tell me what I lied about, then why should I have to answer for it? As far as you would know, you're still wrong. Just a simple hypothetical.
dont turn anything anyone else said on me, i never said my english is better then yours, let alone in the post you just replyed too.
How did the portion that you quoted have anything to do with me using other people's statements against you? As far as I can tell, that's me talking to you and about you, alone.
Equinox said that, but you failed to understand him.
Bam. Goes to show how much you know. Equinox is a girl. Way to go. You just assumed the hell out of her. Now who is assuming things about other people? Go ahead and rationalize it. I already rationalized why I thought you were Italian. That way, you can shut up about something that happened as a result of your poor English.
even worse than that, you lie because you want to use your "main" argument for the millionth time, and you know wich argument im refering too; good old grammar mistakes.
How did I lie, exactly? First, we were debating about your poor grammar and why you were stupid. Now I'm lying? And if you knew that I would know which argument you were going to refer to, then why mention the topic at all? What a waste of energy.
yet again you make false assumptions and fully aware lies.
Oh man, I saw this when I first read over your post and was anticipating this reply:
Ahem...how can my assumptions be false? So you're saying I was lying that I assumed you're Italian? On that basis, why are you complaining that I assumed that you're Italian?
Also, I had no idea that my (non-existent) lies were fully aware. If they are capable of consciousness, then holy shit! Someone call the Nobel Prize Committee! I just created the first conscious being!
everytime you "seem" to forget any of your own posts.
Speaking of people who forget what's going on, what the hell does this have to do with what you quoted? And I don't recall having any troubles remembering my argument. I know exactly what I was saying. I'm just leading you on to see how deep of shit you will step into.
maybe you already wrote something down and you only need my confirmation i am from italy wich im not, i dont know why your so fixated on italy.
Why should I rely on you to confirm information when you are already misinformed? Being the retard you very well are, you probably don't know your ass from two bits of dry ice. And the only reason Italy is an issue is because you won't let go of the fact that I made that assumption based on the context of your sentence. That "context of your sentence" is almost getting annoying to say. But I'm having too much fun laughing at you to care.
but worse than that you try to affiliate me to Mussolini, i never spoke about him, i never agreed on anything Mussolini said and i never had any fascist remark about anything or anyone unlike you do.
I affiliated you with Mussolini on based on the assumption that you were Italian, so don't get your granny panties in a wad. Nor did I say that you were a fascist. I simply made fun of your supposed government because you made fun of mine. What was that saying you used that relates to this situation..."what goes around comes around". Yeah, that's it.
want more sample's of your remarks?
I'd love to. It's always fun to just marvel at how much better I am than you.
this is not the only post where you try to insult my country or the people that live here.
infact remember the first post directed to me?
Based on the context of that sentence, it would be more than reasonable to say that you are admitting that you are Italian. But I guess that would be unfair, as I should ask your dumb ass in order to make a point, right?
And I do remember my first post. I mostly was intrigued with how you were so pompous in your attack on the U.S. and how you were basically calling us all stupid for believing it. I mostly addressed you out of contempt for your blatant bullshit spewing.
there are more posts where you try to make such insults.
I have made a lot of insults, as there is so much to make fun of you for. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
oh and you are still asuming im from italy or that i have anything to do with people like Mussolini or that i want to kill people who do not share my beliefs whatever those beliefs may be?
I never said you had anything to do with Mussolini, other than that you supposedly lived in Italy, where he ruled. So, as a result of your verbal attack on America, I verbally attacked you about Italy. And I don't really care what your beliefs are because they do not pertain to many facts and to take an uninformed opinion into account would warp my own, almost as much as your opinion already is.
and did i ever accuse you for being a murdering imperialist?
That's a dumb question. See...if I didn't remember the rest of this thread, then I wouldn't be able to answer. But since I am informed about what our debate is about, I can confidently say that you didn't. Besides, you'd be wrong, anyways. Then again, being wrong about one more thing wouldn't affect you much, as you are already, for the most part, wrong.
and i already told you im not italian, i dont know what kind of hate you have against people from italy.
I said that I was going to assume that you were Italian based on context, since you were bitching out of telling me where you're from. And I have nothing against Italy. In fact, I recall saying in this thread that I've heard nothing but good things about Italy. In fact, I even saw pictures of Italy. Beautiful place. Made me want to learn Italian.
are you debating those arent your rambelings?
That's not the issue at all. I was saying that I was not trying to win you over, as much as I was trying to make you run away and cry. Way to not know what the hell we are talking about.
did i not tell you countless times i dont care if people dont perceive me as being justified?
I can definitely count the number of times you told me, but I don't care. Besides, if you don't care if you're perceived to be justified, then why are you still arguing with me?
You still dont get it do you
What's there to get? Nothing you say is logical. And the fact that you're a foreigner gives precedence to my argument that nothing you say is logical. So, perhaps, it's not so much that I don't get it, as it is that no English-speaking person can get it because your English sucks.
I never believed in IQ and if yours is 90 or more i never will, even if mine is 40 above yours.
If you don't believe in I.Q., then don't use it as a a basis for an argument. How can you even appease yourself by making a counterpoint that goes against your own logic?
exactly how is your post about my english a discussion?
yet again you failed to answer my question, let me try again:
boring, is this how you win an argument? how sad.
Once again, reading comprehension is not your strong-suit. Perhaps if you spoke better English, you'd know that by saying that my strategy is better than yours, I am indirectly acknowledging that this is how I win arguments. And I know that I won all my previous arguments because people told me about how well I did in stomping the shit out of their arguments.
maybe you are always wrong, even on you being almost always right and not knowing how it feels to be wrong.
All I can extrapolate from that miscarriage, that is a sentence, is that you are saying that perhaps I might be wrong. But then again, if I said that in one mole of hydrogen, there is 6.02 x 10^23 molecules. And you know what? I might be wrong about that. But since you can't prove me wrong, then why should I change my stance?
are you still going on and on and on about you being "good" at english (pretty obvious when your native lanquage is english) and me being not so "good" as you are at english (pretty obvious when my native language isnt english)
last i checked you must have a "cite" or "source" to anything anyone says.
If you gave it any thought (even though I know you didn't even think when you were making your argument), you'd realize that by correcting your grammar and spelling, I'm doing you a favor, so you can speak and write better English.
there wasnt an argument, i said something, you "assumed" i said something else
Based on the context of your poorly written sentence. Therefore, this incident should give you better reason to take my advice on English. Who better to learn from than a native speaker? Hell, you should pay me for this.
but even then i couldnt save you from total failure to comprehend or understand anything, because you just ignored me telling you you are wrong at the assumption you made about me saying something, and tell me you are not wrong.
Just because I assumed wrong about your nationality based on the context of your shitty sentence doesn't mean I can't understand anything. Last I checked, I scored a 97% on the SATs (American college exam) for reading comprehension. So suck on those nuts.
And that leads me into another point, if I assumed wrong, then don't just say I'm wrong. Instead of bashing your head against the keyboard, Correct me, you dumb fuck. As it seems you fail to explain anything, most of the time. The only reason you're explaining at all now is because I'm gradually pounding some common fucking sense into that dense skull of yours.
wtf? no way can you turn that around on me now, here's a sample:
Looks like you're saying "wtf" as if you're in shock that you think that I can't turn it around on you. Well, have no fear, for there is no reason to be surprised, as I, indeed, can turn around that piece of shit point.
you must feel pretty "wrong" now, and if you dont then something is "wrong" with you.
Not at all. Because I have not been wrong in the slightest to assume that you're Italian, because you wrote a sentence that implied that you were Italian. Instead of being a punk bitch and hiding your identity, you can go ahead and tell us what country your from, so you can show your pride for the country that you believe is so much greater than the U.S.
I will answer you that with your own post.
Good thing we came to the same understand. I don't know what it's like to be overshadowed by someone much smarter than I, but I sympathize for you. I guess you'll just keep arguing with me, so you can feel important that I am even recognizing your existence.
your full of contradictions.
You still haven't proven or explained why I am supposedly contradicting myself. Man, this is as if I am waiting for a cripple to kick me.
yet again you lie.
So you're saying that you didn't tell me the documentary was from BBC?
i never searched for any sources, i remembered seeing a documentary:
I never said you searched for sources. And I fully recognized that you didn't cite your sources. In fact, that was one of the things I was making fun of you for.
And this documentary you saw...didn't you say it was from panorama BBC?
do i have to repeat myself to put some sense into you?:
Once again, I said it with the understanding that your are Italian. So, I must ask you if I have to repeat myself in order for you to stop being a punk bitch with no understanding of the mechanics of debate? You know...many people choose to debate, remembering that they should choose their words carefully, as to not implicate the wrong things.
do i still have to repeat im not interested at "making" people believe me?
No, because at that rate, you have nothing to stay here for. You would have failed already if you were trying to appeal to everyone else, anyways.
to bad it was a question not an insult.
First, in order to further your English skills, I must tell you that it is is supposed to be "too bad", as "too" shows excess. Also, in our country, a remark like that would be considered rhetorical, which means it would not be something to be answered, as it is meant to be more of an insult than a question demanding explanation.
I must say, it was fun to play "your" game, and you lost bigtime.
I'll assume that you meant to say "I", instead of "you", in an effort to correct your poor grammar.
nothing is too complicated.
Haha, that's bullshit. Quantum Physics is too complicated. Calculus is too complicated. The explanation of what exactly makes you so stupid is complicated. That's wrong three times over, already. I'd go on and on. But if I did, you'd probably run away before I could pay attention you tearing up.
*sigh* I can be such a nice person sometimes. But it's impossible to keep up this quotefest with two people. One retard is better than two.
Okay, please don't let my verbal rape of Doppelganger stop others from continuing the discussion about Iraq. So, do you guys really think that the U.S. can stop an insurgency in Iraq, despite the fact that there is a flow of recruits into the country?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
its not american pride, its the message behind it. they will defeat us if we retreat. the world will know that if you keep it up enough, we will eventually leave and try to forget about it. what does that do for dictators and madmen that run other countries? that we will surrender if it drags on too long? what purpose did our soldiers fight and die for?
as fudlow stated, there will be a vacuum of power and terrorists will wait for the day we leave. they havoc and destruction will break loose. the lives we lost or that the iraqis lost will have nothing on what will happen. the beheadings they show us of our own people will seem like walks in the park compared to the horror they will unleash.
i dont remember who called bush a war mongrel, but if he is, than so am i. hell, call me hitler. i dont care. what i know is that somethings were needed to be done and bush was the only one in the country who had the balls to carry out with it, despite the popularity he knew he would lose. and if that wasnt enough, americans vote for him again! imagine that. remember that WWII and even the civil war were unpopular. the presidents of those times were becoming unpopular fast, until of course the war was won. but this war is likely to take even more than just a few years. its a war on terror, how do you fight terror, an idea?
fudlow is right again, there is much to be lost if we merely retreat. billions of dollars that people complain have gone to the war. if we stay and tough it out longer than we will at least eventually establish iraq and trade will bring that money back. but if we pull out and the system falls apart (as we know it will at this time) then we will loose all the money and all the lives lost would be for nothing.
would you guys do me a favor? go to blockbuster, or netflix, and get a movie, actually two. Rambo 1 and 2. that'll show you the message to be learned if you tough it out during the killing and explosions.
nothing of it happened before the invasion of the US troops in Iraq. Some people died, yeah, but there was balance. There are 2 factions in Iraq in case u dont know that are hostile to each other. Saddam, as bad as he may have been, managed to keep balance between them and prevent a civil war. The puppet government assigned by the US doesnt know how to do anything but to give the oil to the american/british companies, thus the explosions etc. The reason so many people have died so far, is the american invasion.
actually Bush knew he wouldnt be able to get elected again (from ur law as Mutton mentioned in another thread i think) so he did what he could to get even more rich. Fahrenheit 9/11 had enough proof about it. 9/11 made him rich and Iraq even more rich. Sure suited him for the time he retired from presidenthood, dont you think?
dont mix such things up, you only make yourself look stupid. Invading another country for economical reasons is more like what Germany did in WWII, theres nothing "righteous" about it. The civil war was a civil war, nothing to do with outside forces either. So stop comparing an apple with an orange, its just not possible. The "war" was supposed to be won long ago in Iraq too. Know why there are still rebels there fighting? Cause they want their country free. If someone came and took over your country would you not fight? I think yes. But with your logic you'd be a terrorist.
you already lost. Since the companies cant manage to bring the oil out cause of the civil war and the rebellion (sort of) going on there, you cant do what you wanted when you got there in the first place. You cant force someone to respect the government you assigned in there, thats why they all fail. And by executing Saddam, he became the hero, and everyone else the criminal (in the eyes of the people at least).
I'm telling you again, a war for the oil isnt a war against terror. there werent any terrorists in Iraq. There werent any weapons of mass destruction. Only oil that was about to be traded with Europeans in Euro. Which means a massive economical hit to the US, thus they rushed to include Iraq into the "campaign against terror". Think logically and u'll get the point. If not then ur probably unable to think.
hahahaha. People always told me there are people there that thought of it that way but i didnt believe them. You do know Rambo never existed, dont you? Its just an action film, dont try to "get messages" from it. Its like getting a message from Chronicles of Riddick.
Anyway, since u liked 300 so much i'll make a comparison (explaining why too) to make it easier for you to notice:
300 (or 1000, however you prefer it): Iraqi - they tried to protect their country, and once occupied they kept fighting against the odds.
Persians - US, Brittish and the troops of all the other countries that moved there to grab something they had no right to. Invaders that if justice exists somewhere will have to be driven out.
The problem here though is, as earlier stated, that the Iraqi's don't want the US there. It doesn't work to just "set up" governments and then hope that it works, especially not in countries whose views of the world differ so widely from the views of their occupants. Samehow the US has to improve their reputation over there. Don't ask me how though, with opponents denouncing America around every corner and suicide bombers blowing themselves up every day.
Doesn't matter. My point is that if you can't disprove it, then don't talk. I invited you to do so, previously, and I'm still waiting for some more credible source to disprove it. You can argue the possibility of it having misinformation, all you want, but it doesn't matter when it presents the right information. But just to humor you, schools don't accept it, because they don't want to bother examining the credibility of sources, unless the cited information (you know, the kind that Doppelganger isn't using?) is outright wrong.
Then you aren't paying attention to what the flags are for or you just aren't paying attention to what's in the article. But either way, I don't care, because my source still isn't wrong. Again, if it's not a good source to argue with, then prove me wrong! You fail to see the point of an argument. The point is for you to disprove me, and all you're spewing probability at me.
Right...cuz someone actually won the war of 1812. No one won the War of 1812. In fact, there were equal losses on either side. Britain threw their best commanders at America, and it worked to their advantage when it came to the invasion of Canada, which failed because of British tactics. However, when Britain tried to invade, they got annihilated. And their plan to pit the Indians against America failed too, cuz we kicked their asses as well. Not to mention the Battle of New Orleans, where Britain launched a full-scale invasion and Andrew Jackson pumped lead up all of their asses. But the War of 1812 is besides the point. And it has nothing to do with the Iraq War.
That's a joke, right? By capturing Saddam, we ended a regime in which tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis were murdered in the sake of politics. I've already gave a huge synopsis of Saddam and the damage he did in the "September 11 was fake" thread. Just search for it. I'm not going to reiterate this.
What country are you from, exactly? In the face of stupid (doppel), I forgot my manners when addressing someone else.
Politics is derived directly and completely from history. If there wasn't that, then what would politicians have to argue about?
Still not listening. Unless you have a more credible source that disproves mine, then don't fight it. Because as far as the mechanics of debate works, you can't make a good point, without disproving my point.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that people in your country were illiterate. Maybe you should tell us what country you're from now, so I can slander your country. Come on man, I just said your people can't read. Why don't you tell me what country you're from so I can verbally abuse you from the historical perspective of your own country.
Seems like you couldn't tell before, but I can definitely read better than you. You can't even spell "surprise". But you really think you didn't say our government was evil? How about this:
Bam. You're done, son. You are no longer, nor have you ever been credible, or right. And don't bother trying to edit your post, as I would assume that a jackass like you would do that. I am telling you this cuz your shit is timestamped.
Well, this is an argument. I figured I'd just go with the flow, you know. Unlike you. You can't even stay on point.
Actually, that gives me an idea of why you aren't making coherent points of your own. When you fell asleep, you must have rolled your head around on the keyboard. I don't think there's any other why you could spout this bullshit argument, that is filled with bullshit false information, which you still haven't cited.
Ouch, that hurts man. For a person who can't even spell or punctuate, you're really one to talk about maturity. Even if I was a child, you have more to worry about than me, because nobody believes you. Except for that autistic kid, probably. You know, the one you have so much in common with?
Now allow me to use the same counterpoint that you did. Except mine will be more acceptable, since I said anything like that. Now, where exactly did I post that everyone who doesn't agree with me is a 9/11 conspirator? Please, tell me. Cuz if I did, that would bring me down to your level. And nobody wants to be there.
I really hope you would. By the way, you didn't even use punctuation to signify your emote. You're even bad at talking in computer jargin. Is there anything that you don't fail at, besides being stupid?
If I couldn't read, do you think I would be able to form coherent responses to your bullshit statements and questions (which are not coherent)?
As it should be. Because nobody likes sweeping generalizations.
Yah damned right I attacked you first, because I started this thread to encourage intelligent discussion. Then you come in here with your stupid, uncited, "supposedly factual", argument. You didn't even say it was your opinion. You stated that bullshit as fact.
And the phrase, "what goes around comes around", doesn't work in this situation. This is because I'm not flinging bullshit lies at you. In order for it to work, we'd both have to be flinging bullshit, and I know that I am more right than you, and anyone with a functioning brain knows I'm more right than you.
Hah, so you're italian. Okay, I'd just like to start off by saying Mussolini. So don't act all high and mighty. By the way, when you said that you're smart for not telling me where you're from, I guess that means you have to call yourself stupid now, now that you said you're Italian.
Anyways, to address your plan. It wouldn't work. If you were watching any of those news channels that you claim to watch, you'd know that Bush did that already, and basically everyone pulled out after no WMDs were found. No one is going to fight now, anyways.
People were calling America the bad guy long before the Iraq War. They called the U.S. evil for fighting the Vietnam War and the Korean War, but nobody dared call China or Russia bad, basically because they won in the end. They called America evil for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which was justified by the fact that there were fewer casualties as a result. Again, I can pull up a previous argument specifically about the Japan campaign, from the "September 11 was fake" thread.
Attention! Everyone! I now, again, have irrefutable evidence that he indeed is a terrible debater and is stupid. Here is a source, which Doppel still fails to use:
http://www.rand.org/commentary/042905CT.html
Notice the time stamp is 2005, and the author says that kidnapping began the year before. You're dumb as hell. Over 200 people were kidnapped over the course of one year.
Here's another one: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/09/iraq.main/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2664258&page=1
The list goes on and on.
That's a load of crap. Britain has only spent a total of 7 billion on the war. Here's an article specifically related to it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/20/nterr20.xml
America has spent close to 400 billion dollars. You do the math. And multiple bills were passed specifically for reconstruction. So don't give Britain the pat on the back.
http://costofwar.com/numbers.html
Oh my god, your entire plan has been presented and executed already. You definitely don't watch the news enough. At least a quarter of the money spent on Iraq went to training an Iraqi army. Also, who would be stupid enough to employ the same soldiers that worked under Saddam's regime? I can't believe you'd even suggest recycling defeated armies. A C average president is smart enough not to even consider that. Just think of where that puts you.
Seems that way to everyone else too. But these current methods will never work. And there was a big positive that resulted from the war. A genocidal dictator was taken out of power.
Hell yes! *high five*
That definitely is pride involved. Because the U.S. would be heralded as a bitch if we just skeedaddled out of there.
I dont know who it was, but they definitely used the wrong word. The appropriate term is war monger. A mongrel is another term for a mixed-breed dog.
This war isn't even symbolic in the same way that WWII or the Civil War were anymore. It's just about not bending to terrorists.
Fighting a word is dumb as hell and is about as promising an idea as the war on drugs, which failed miserably, by the way. So if one cannot even stop people from smoking crack, then what would make them think that they could stop people from terrorizing others.
That is a terrible idea. And it is a prime example of propaganda. The idea of one American defeating the entire army of Northern Vietnam? That's a load of crap.
I wonder what a "credible" source to discredit wikipedia can possibly be? It's just my personal experience with that thing.
I really don't like cited discussions. I also don't like when people bring up quotes of philosophers to prove their point. Because then, it's not the people talking, but all those philosophers and all the people in wikipedia, not YOU.
And why is it me not paying attention to the flags instead of you not checking the information? My point is not to disprove you. My point is that citing doesn't exactly prove anything. How about two independent sources about the same thing that disagree? How will you know which one is right? Just how? Your source isn't wrong, but no one knows how true it is. I never provide sources. I don't know if they are true. I just say what I think based on views of other people in different places.
They did win the war. According to my history teacher, of course. Americans proved the second time that if British bothers them again, they will kick but. This war also caused the Era of Good Feelings, which was pretty good for US. It also pretty much destroyed the Federalist party, making people calm down about all that division again. It wasn't really that bad. Shame Americans didn't get Canada, though... on the other hand, I would want Canada to exist... lol...
I am from Ukraine. It's bigger then some other Slavic countries, but compared to Russia, it's tiny... It's to the west of Russia... farming place, and a lot better place than Russia to live in. WAS, at least, I don't know how it is now, after the Orange Revolution and all.
I wonder what does this have to do with illiteracy...? In my country's language, it's "Viyna Zalyvu", where "Viyna" stands for war, and "Zalyvu" stands to "of a Gulf".
Confusing typos with grammar? You should see me typing fast, I make mistakes every 5 words. Most of us are not typists, and most of us are in a hurry.
Insult others, and they will likely insult you.
Do you take classes in ignoring pertinent information? Or does that come naturally to you? I must admit, you are by far, without a doubt, the dumbest person I have ever had the displeasure of having to prove wrong on this forum. And trust me, there are many dumb asses who have been here.
That was sarcasm, you moron.
What does "and that for a foreign language" mean anyways? My point is, that if you can't even form a proper sentence, how do you expect people to believe you're right, let alone intelligent.
What the fuck does that even mean?! Not only did you just ignore the fact that I proved you're a hypocrite, you quote something and say nothing related to it? This is the greatest level of buttfuckery ever reached.
What? So you're implying that you asked me where I'm from? As I recall, you never did. But I'll ignore that now.
The reason I asked you is because you can't just jump into a forum and say America is evil, which you did say, then deny, and when I called you on it, you ignored it completely, without getting your ass handed to you when I dig up all the dirt on your homeland. You country affiliated with the Nazis. And your fascist history ain't got shit on America.
Funny, you've learned enough English to be able to talk to me, but you can't even figure out common English epithets and idiums without mincing words.
Are all Italians like you? Damn, and my friends were trying to tell me that Italy had cool people there. Man, were they wrong if this is the case. How can you have an intelligent debate if you don't use primary sources? How do you expect to form points about issues without having the information to back you up? If you can't do that, then it wouldn't be a debate. It would be a shit-flinging contest, which you seem to have a lot of experience in.
So? What kind of counter point is that. You're done. Good thing you're saying you left, cuz you just quoted a factfest just so you could put two useless letters together.
So...you're saying that 7 billion dollars is more than 400 billion dollars? I would really like another person's opinion, just so I know I'm still living in the same dimension. By the way, English isn't a foreign language for me, you jackass. Don't even bother talking in this language if you're not even going to bother to speak it properly.
You're retarded. I think you're stupidity should be taught in schools, just like the Holocaust, just to teach kids that nobody should be as dumb as you, just as the Holocaust is constantly taught to prevent more genocides.
By the way, you mind giving us an actual source? Saying you watched a documentary isn't gonna do shit for anyone. BBC puts out plenty of documentaries. And since you're still not giving us a name, then no one needs to believe you. Not that they do anyways.
Great counterpoint. I should change the way I debate, which I might add, has been complimented by debate clubs in all the competitions I have been in, just because you don't like it. That's bullshit. I'm not here to appease you. Nor do I give a shit if I'm a moderator, because you're still ignorant.
You may ask yourself, "why am I so ignorant". I'll tell you. It's because you read my argument, then say you don't like it, and prance around like your opinion is fact. That's a bitch move.
Maybe if you decided to take the time to bring hard evidence to a discussion, you wouldn't seem like such a dumb bitch. How do you expect to argue over facts, which influence your opinion, if you don't use facts at all?
Okay, you can continue your argument by pulling random things out of your ass, but I choose to debate with class. Debating with class involves being informed. How the fuck do you expect someone to make a decision without knowing what the fuck is going on? The point of citing discussions is to show what people should know when considering what people say. If you don't know, then you can't just say random shit. And it certainly doesn't work in America. And if you think it does, then by all means, get rejected by all the colleges you want.
Then your history teacher is wrong. Do you want to know what ended the War of 1812? The Treaty of Ghent. Do you know what the definition of treaty is? A compromise. Who in their right mind would resort to negotiations if they kicked the other country's ass? I rest my case.
You're right about all that. But I must say, I am currently in an AP History class, which I might add, is based on a curriculum formed by a nationwide standard. And in The American Pageant, our standard AP History book, which is very recent, it indeed says that no one won the War of 1812.
Eh, I cease to have a purpose of this point. But that's fairly interesting. Never met anyone of Ukrainian descent. In fact, I hardly know anything about Ukraine.
That has nothing to do with it. Gulf and Zalyvu are not different in the same way as Gulf and Golf. His was a misspelling. And yet, he claims that everyone in his country spells it this way, which means they're all spelling it wrong, in both Italian and English. Because the Italian word for Gulf is golfo.
I speak of typos and grammar as a whole. Not only does he fail to spell words correctly. But he fails to form appropriate English sentences. Even you have to concede that his English is far from decent.
In light of this recent contamination of stupidity, I will take it upon myself to design guidelines for ideal online discussion. When I make them, I suggest you all read it and take it into account when making your point, if you ever wish to get on my level. If you decide to pull idiotic comments out of your ass, I will not hesitate to retaliate, in order to defend the not only the English language, but the sanctity of human progress. Because there is no point in being capable of intelligence if you're not going to say anything intelligent.
That wasn't a counterpoint. And I didn't ask you to change anything. Debate clubs? I don't see you debating. Insulting, rather. Or, perhaps, you would rather insult less if you want your debating to become visible.
I would rather ask, who gave you the right to consider myself more ignorant than yourself?
I don't prance about anything. All that I write is an automatic IMHO. A quote of my prancing, please, since you like citing so much.
I have just told you that for me, the concept of "hard evidence" is nonexistent, and that everything can be fabricated. Why would I provide hard evidence if I have just told you I don't believe in it?
I don't argue over facts. There are no facts for me. If I hear something, I may consider it probable or not probable. That is all. I argue over what people think. One version seems more credible than the other. Another thing that I may suggest is checking neutral sources which will, most likely, post less propaganda. And it doesn't influence my opinion. I do not have an opinion about Iraq at all, because I don't think there is any appropriate information about it. I only know that Americans went to interfiere with Iraq (too much pointing toward it, we are not in 1984, after all), and for me, under most circumstances, that is a nasty thing to do, just as nasty as was Europe's and America's interfierence during the war between the Red and White armies in Russia... here, my opinion ends.
You are not debating if you are insulting. I never heard of debates that consist of insults. Debating with class involves being polite.
I'm not making any decision. I do not believe that a decision about Iraq is possible, I have told you already. But Dopple's version seems more credible to me. Probably because he is not as eccentric as you and doesn't keep insulting instead of debating. And no "hard evidence" that you may provide will convince me of one way or the other. I judge information depending on how it sounds.
I would expect an AP History student to understand indirect statements. Yes, the war was ended by an armistice agreement. Not exactly a compromise, nothing changed, no land changed hands, no one said anything about impressment, they just ended the war and went off. But were the Americans at an advantage at the end? Yes, they were, you yourself agreed. That is the real winning. I certainly wasn't talking about a technical win, I suggested that you would understand that.
If you met many Russians, you probably have met a Ukrainian. Most Ukrainians often refer to themselves as Russians, because a lot of them speak Russian and hardly know Ukrainian, but I know both, and I like Ukrainian better, it is known as the second most melodical language in the world after Italian... anyway, Russians and Ukrainians do differ, but I'm afraid my opinion will be biased, so I'll stop there. )))
It appears that "Golf" is a mix of two languages, then.
Again, why should he form appropriate English sentences? I think his English is much more decent than yours. I prefer people that write choppy to people that write dirty.
Then what was it? And you obviously did tell me to change the way I debate. You told me not to use Wikipedia. You're wrong there too. And I definitely don't care if I insult you in the process of making my points.
How am I not debating? Do you even know what a debate is? Because if you don't then you should know how wrong you are.
Please count the number of insults I have made and the number of points I have made. You'll see the ratio finds the number of points to be far greater. So if you can't see, then you shouldn't even be talking, because you wouldn't even be capable of extrapolating your head out of your own ass at that rate.
You say that as if I am somehow ignorant myself. In which case, you're wrong. Because all you're doing is talking about your feelings and how I shouldn't debate by these methods.
Why the fuck would you say that you're prancing? Like you're just going to announce your every action. I'm using visuals in my writing to show just how pretentious you were being.
So...if I place a stack of papers in front of you, in the middle of a debate, where the issue was whether or not the Holocaust happened, and this stack of papers had personal accounts as well as pictures and international reports, that say that the Holocaust happened, is that stack of papers non-existent?
And if you, indeed, believe that all that shit is fabricated, then how the hell do you have a debate. You can't just say, "Well, I don't believe it" and walk out. You would be saying that everyone who said any of the information I presented, may be lying. Now, you can be as schizophrenic as you want to be. But I am not paranoid, therefore, I can trust third-party, credible sources. Arguing out of simple paranoia that someone may be lying to you is bullshit. So, take the evidence I have presented to you, and either disprove it and stop whining, or just leave. You can't have a factual discussion if you don't believe in facts.
So, hard evidence is a figment of your imagination then, right? Sort of like a flying spaggheti monster or something.
There is no resolution to a debate/argument/(whatever other synonym you want to pull out of your ass), if you can't find certain things to be true. Cuz if you don't believe in facts, then you're in the wrong thread, my (not) friend.
So, if you only argue over people's thoughts, that makes you an imperialist. That makes you no better than the U.S. government, who impose the belief that democracy works for everyone. That makes you no better than the terrorists, who impose their religious beliefs on all others and kill the ones who don't accept it. If we were talking about Socrates, Voltaire, or any other fucking philosopher, then the concept of fact can come into question. But other than that, if you can't accept that, then don't debate here, because we find the concept of fact to be true.
If you don't believe in facts, then how can you find a neutral source? Bam, you contradicted yourself. And if you don't incorporate facts into your opinion, you'd be just as well off as saying, "the eggs are purple because seafoam is made of cheese which came from planet penis". And that sounds like something Doppelganger would say.
If you don't have an opinion about Iraq, then get the fuck out of this thread. The whole idea is for you to share your position, which is another word for opinion, mind you. And you just said that everything you said is "IMHO" which I'm assuming means your opinion, basically. And if everything you said, including the things you said about America and Iraq, are your opinion, then you just lied about saying that you don't have an opinion on Iraq.
You just said that you don't have an opinion about Iraq. Then you said you think that America shouldn't be in Iraq. That's an opinion about Iraq, you dumbass.
And if you know that America went to interfere with Iraq, that means that you do believe in fact, (the fact that America interfered with Iraq) in which case, you've contradicted yourself AGAIN!
Do you enjoy contradicting yourself? Because I enjoy watching you do it.
Oh, I definitely can insult and debate at the same time, bitch. See? I just stated that I disagreed with you, forming the foundation of a debate. Then, I called you a bitch, which is an insult. Therefore, I insulted you and debated at the same time. What are the odds of that?! (in case you didn't notice, that last sentence was rhetorical, since you fail to understand common American literary tools).
You know what else debating with class involves? Not being a retard.
Speaking of tools, I wonder what Doppelganger is going to say next..Meh, probably nothing logical.
He's not as eccentric? I just read a portion of his post, and he's "lolling" and he even called me a "fucking sad baby". Not that I'm offended, but if you think that's not eccentric then something is wrong with you. But don't be surprised, because I'm not.
Well, apparantly, you prefer things that sound nice, so let me provide a simple counterexample:
You said that America is interfering with Iraq. And you believe it is fact, as you said that you knew it. So, if I said, "Those fucking Americans got into Iraq's fucking business!", does that make me any less right? No, because "fucking" is an adjective with an empty meaning that only serves to further a negative connotation. It does not modify facts. And I only used that example because you agreed that you knew it to be true, despite your belief that there is no such thing as fact.
But if America did win the war, like you said, they would have forced more conditions out of Britain and Canada. The concept of victory in this scenario isn't factual, its opinionated. There is no clear-cut victory, because no one was overall, defeated. Now, I can accept it as your opinion. But then again, you basically said you only believed it because that's what your history teacher taught. So why don't you accept my AP history teacher's teachings or my AP history books? Or are they just figments of your imagination?
Everyone was at an advantage. Canada had increased patriotism because they held off the American invasion, the Brits were happy because they got 6000 slaves from American merchant ships, and America was happy because they stopped Britain from taking them over again. But now that you say it wasn't a technical win, I can understand what you're saying. The War of 1812 was, in essence, a win-win war. Everyone was happy. Except the Indians, because they got proverbially raped.
But last I checked, we weren't speaking Ital-English or some wierd hybrid language. We're speaking clear-cut English (well...maybe not clear-cut in Doppelganger's case, but he has established that he is not speaking a hybrid language, because I have not needed a dictionary to translate anything he says, except for the Italian term for Gulf). Even if we were speaking in Italian, he's still wrong.
Well, if he's going to have a debate, then how is anyone going to think he's intelligent if he can't even spell simple words like Gulf and surprise and a lot (which he spelled allot) and understand the difference in usage of then vs. than.
You're saying that this guy speaks better English than I do? Hahahahaha! I just showed this thread to my friends, my parents (who are heads of the copy editors desk), and my girlfriend, and they all laughed hysterically. I hope you don't mean that his grammar is more correct than mine, because two foreigners arguing with a person who has an A average in AP English and AP Latin (giving further understanding to the English language) are definitely not on my level of reading comprehension.
Why realize how dumb, supposedly, I am, when you can't even tell me why I am.
And for someone who was attempting to attack me about how I supposedly only criticize your grammar (as well as not even reply to anything else I said, because doing so would ruin your argument that I am only a grammar criticizer), you sure did yourself a favor by criticizing my grammar. Now who is attacking who over grammar?
That aside, if you really think you speak better English than I do, then start by capitalizing the first letter of all your sentences, stop using acronyms for easy phrases like "by the way", spell surprise, Gulf, and a lot right, and stop using multiple exclamation points. That's not proper English to write.
And I implore you, once again, please tell me why you think I am a fascist. Because, last I checked, I was presenting an argument (as well as a couple of insults, because how can I pay attention to your bullshit if I'm not having fun), as opposed to someone like Mussolini, who lead your country (under the context of your previous statement, I am still assuming that you're from Italy), as opposed to trying to reason with others, resorted to kill people who didn't share the same beliefs as him. So, unless you pull a skeleton out of my closet, don't accuse me of being a murdering imperialist (which is a fascist, in case you didn't understand that).
Well, I can assure you I'm not trying to win you over. Because I'd be ashamed to be on the same side of an argument as you. But so far, I've done a better job of proving you wrong than you have done with proving me wrong (which you still need to do, if you hope to have people perceive you as being justified in your opinion).
That is you stating that either "us" is Italian, or the British are. And, last I checked, the British are from Britain, not Italy.
Better than your strategy, which basically involves you saying, "No, you're wrong!" And then you go ahead to not explain. But you are right, this is sad. I'm having to resort to discussion with a retard. I'd get more positive results by bashing my head against a concrete wall. But alas, I'm bored.
Well, I don't understand what it feels like to be wrong, as I am almost never wrong, unlike you. And I definitely don't need to know what it feels like to be wrong in order to verbally demolish anything you say. And since when do friends have anything to do with being informed? Can anyone interject? Because, last I checked, it didn't. Nor does your argument have anything to do with being right (because, you're not).
If you don't need anyone to believe you, then why are you still arguing with me? Last I checked, I was getting PMs of approval for pulling the silk veil off the pile of bullshit that is your argument.
And if you don't care if you find the source, then why were you trying so hard to tell me that it was from BBC?
Not at all, because as this argument goes, you're the dumb one here. You can't even properly articulate a sentence. You'd be better off to just admit that you made a typo. Equinox is from the Ukraine and even she can spell Gulf right. I know you are lying about how golf is how it is spoken in your country, because the rest of your words are in English.
You mean in the same way that your sources don't? You can say I don't make sense at all, but until you explain what you're saying, you're not appealing to anyone. And if you are indeed not trying to appeal to or make anyone believe you, then you should leave the thread, like you said you were going to and let the smarter people discuss the topic at hand.
And what country are you from? Because you gotta know where yah been before yah know where you're going.
And so, you're admitting that you spelled Gulf wrong, because everyone else in your country spelled it wrong. So, either you're lying, or you're saying that everyone in your country can't spell for shit.
Fucking? Your mom? Yes. Sad? Not at all. Baby? Well, your mom can vouch for me that I am certainly not a baby. Boy, I sure turned that insult around. Any more feces you want to throw at me? Or can this thread continue with more intelligent thoughts than that of your own. Well, I'm not going to wait for you. Bye bye.
---
Anyways, well, I think we went to Iraq for the wrong reasons to begin with. However, Bush somehow believed that he would get more support if we he said Saddam was building bombs as opposed to saying that Saddam was murdering his own people.
Now, we are staying in Iraq for the wrong reasons. You get more with honey than with vinegar, and by blowing up homes and shooting suspected terrorists and such, the U.S. government is not going to gain any more friends.
Now, the solution that the withdrawal plan offers us is to step back and seek a new approach, like negotations. But no, Bush don't like no negotations, cuz he's a spoiled retard from West Bumblefuck. Only once the Democrats took control of Congress did he ever even consider appealing to the people.
Regardless of how long we spend in Iraq, insurgents will step in and overthrow the government. It's inevitable. But to seek compromise with them would bring about a whole lot more positives. How could you call America evil if they're compromising with you? But I consider this war to be more about the spread of capitalism than democracy. Why else would China be supplying insurgents with weapons to fight the U.S.?
Those bastards killed my uncle.
So, IMO, I say fuck them all, I really could care less about them, nuke them all!
I'm not joking either.
/f a magik(OD)@useast
Clan ODD2@useast - Free baal/chaos runs
Needing a good PvM build, mainly for baal runs. PM me for more info.
East player only.
DIABLO 3 SUPPORTER
Your uncle went there to kill those people.
Good thing decisions are usually not based on emotions.
one of the reasons Bush Jr stated to explain the attack on Iraq: "this guy (referring to Saddam) tried to kill my father!"
ok, Bush is dumb, but its even more dumb to allow him get elected. twice.
and on
... well, its the kind of stupidity that made the USA look like a global terrorist atm and the main reason some simple people considered 9/11 as a natural retaliation and "a taste of your own medicine". Ofc i dont approve such actions, but if you count the numbers of innocent people all around the globe that died due to bombings and US-sponsored dictatorships they'll be way more.
whats most sad is that the people that actually pay for it with their lives are innocent while the truly guilty people are still alive and they grow rich from it.
A reminder. No, I "obviously" didn't tell you to do anything. Just reminded you that Wikipedia is Wikipedia. And I can as well say that you are wrong, too.
You are insulting. Debate doesn't include insults. If it does, it isn't a debate at all, it's flame.
It doesn't matter, they all get lost in the process. If you want your points heard, type less insults. Why am I noticing only the insults? Why is no one talking to you? Because you are being rude, because you insult, because you do not give room for another opinion at all. None of that has anything to do with normal debating. Debate leads to conclusion. Does this leads to any conclusion? No. Again, don't tell me whether or not to talk, you are a nobody here, just another user like me, and we both have the equal right to chat away.
I didn't say you were ignorant. I don't go around calling people ignorant or stupid simply because I dissagree with them, that is low and immature. All I am doing is replying to your replies to me. My habit is keeping to reply to the end. And I don't have any feelings towards this discussion, except amusement.
When I heard the word prancing, I associate it with gloating, and I wasn't gloating, so I said I wasn't prancing. I am the wrong person to use visuals with, English is my worst class ever.
Regarding Holocaust, there are pictures of skinny people which you won't get anywhere easy. Those pictures tell only one thing: there was a group of people, they were starved, and that is horrible. Period. That is all those pictures tell, that is what I believe. Everything else - something someone wrote, for instance, is not direct proof for me. It may relate to something already proven, such as the fact that people were starverd, but writing can be easily fabricated. Especially considering that Jews get privilidges from the Holocaust to this day. There is a group that is interested in this even, and as long as there is, fabrication is always possible.
If you think information is always reliable, you can try reading George Orwell's "1984". It has a lot of interesting stuff about how the Party made people believe whatever they wanted. Exxagerated, of course, but all the same.
If I have a debate, I plan before the debate. I go to the library and to the internet, collect information, see what matches up and doesn't, check what came from where, and decide which sources sound more credible than others, and what information from those sources seems credible. I do a research paper, basically. When I debate, it's not only the factor of the existence of a source, but the factor of the credibility of that source. But it is still a factor of "seems". Is aspartame very bad for you? I came to the conclusion "not really, unless you eat it in tons"... some people came to the opposite conclusion...
Again, don't tell me when to leave or not. I will sit here and have fun with you until you leave yourself or stop addressing me. To insult me has become impossible through my many years of internet arguing.
Nah, I worship His Shadow and the Teapot. That's why I am so weird.
I am not comparable to US government, because I am not the one in charge of troops sent to die. I am not comparable to a terrorist, since I do not perform any such actions. My opinion is not based on the majority of opinions. My opinion is based about mixes of different opinions. Your opinion is the same, except you find 2-4 sources here and there, and believe them. I do not impose my beliefs at all. I don't have a strong belief. It is always dangling. It depends on what I see and hear. I don't stick to an opinion too much. If someone in a debate proves that he is correct, I will accept that he is correct, never mind my opinion, truth is more important. This is not a debate. And there is no "we", there is only you, no one here supports you.
I am unalbe to contradit myself, because I speak in associations, making some of my posts losing sense. Please remember that catching something that I have wrote is pointless because I often meant "not exactly that". If that sounds weird, stupid, retarded to you, you are welcome.
I'm not in this thread for Iraq. I'm in this thread to argue with you. Regarding opinions and stuff, see above paragraph.
That is an expansion on a limitation, you genius.
Good, because then, we are enjoying each other. Let me go on on contradicting myself. Well, I did, in the first few paragraphs.
I don't think you can. You think you can.
The judge of that is not the debater. If he was, then all debates would consist of "bah, I'm right and you are just a retard!".
Perhaps you should start reading your own posts, too. You chose an attacking attitude, he called you "a fucking sad baby". All square. He was relitating.
Your reference is being insulting to the subject, not the person you are "debating" with. That is what I have always be saying. Insult anyone or anything of the topic as long as you want, but never insult the other person that you are talking to.
Well, that is interesting there. You see, the fact that your AP teacher said something doesn't mean that if you pass the information along, you will pass it exactly the way it was. Just as it was with my teacher. She never said Am won the war. She said that we proved that we would protect our country. But to me, winning is "having advantage over the other side at the end of the conflict", so I translated it as winning, and that is how I passed it over to you. She never said Am won, but that is how I interpreted her words. Make sense?
Well, I guess our history teacher/History Channel video forgot, as always, to mention the advantages that others gained... that's the difference between CP and AP, I suppose... gah, if it wasn't for me moving from school to school every half of a year, I would be in Honors History now... :rolleyes:
Well, as he has just told us, he's not Italian. You make too hastly statements. You suggested that I was from France/Britain/Canada, that was also incorrect.
Well, everyone speaks on this forum like that (except me and a few people). Even Elfen does. So I don't have a say here, I don't like it when people start a sentence with a lowercase letter, but I won't be going around telling people that, would I? That would be rude to the community.
I didn't mean anything regarding grammar. I said that his English is decent and yours is not. And your people certainly have a good sense of humor, my mom would freak out if she knew I was writing this.
If you are A in AP of some classes it does not at all mean that people who are not are less smart than you, or have less reading comprehension. And I can give you some reasons to why that is true. My grades in English always jump up and down. I get an A+ once, a C- another time, then an A+ again, all depends on what the heck are they asking me to write an essay on this time... I'm more of a techno person, I'm not good at inventing articulate stuff out of my head, literature was my bad subject even in Ukraine, in fact, especially in Ukraine, probably because essay assignments were even dumber... OK, I digressed seriously here...
Also, my father would tell you that at a job interview, people look at your attitude first and your knowledge - second.
Then why were you making a point out of trying to tell me not to use Wikipedia? But I guess your bigger point was that you don't believe in fact, right?
A reminder still tells one to do something. You're confusing telling someone to do something, allowing the person to still make a decision, with commanding someone to do something. And who the hell says I need to be reminded that Wikipedia is written by users? I guess that's a failure on your part to realize that I don't give a fuck unless you can prove me wrong, which Doppelganger is under the influence that he is proving me wrong. I use the phrase, "under the influence", because it is obvious that he would have to be smoking shrooms or something to think that he is proving anyone wrong.
Correction, Debate doesn't "normally" include insults. However, this isn't your CP history class or some town league soccer game where everyone wins and they all give trophies, regardless if they lost or not. This is a forum that doesn't care if I insult you in the process of proving you wrong, so fuck you.
How can they be lost in the process if they're sitting right in-fucking-front of you? Whoops, there you go, telling me what to do. Should I take that as a reminder or a command...hmm...doesn't matter, I still don't give a shit.
If that's what you think, then you were wrong from the get-go. First off, you and Doppelganger are talking to me. That makes you twice as wrong.
Yes, I retain my reputation as being the flamer who is always right, and Doppelganger gets showed up as the dumb fuck that he is. Not only that, but with the humorous responses that Doppel makes, I can't afford not to laugh.
Haha. Can't you see I was only reminding you not to talk?
I said "you say that as if" meaning that you implied that I was ignorant. And you may think that my insulting makes me immature, but last I checked, you were still wrong. So why should I change myself when you can't even beat me in a debate (not saying that you said it, I'm saying that you implied it. If you understood the concept of implications, you'd do a lot better in English and History)?
So, your idea is to just keep talking right? Well, with that idealogy, I'm not surprised that you keep tripping yourself up. And if you're only in it for amusement, then you should join me in laughing at the humorous retorts of Doppelganger.
Then that's your fault. The fact that you'd mix up words with different meanings gives further evidence for me to say that you're wrong. How should I accept anything you say, if I have to take into account that you may have mixed up words. In that case, I would not be willing to go to thesaurus.com in order to make sure I'm understand you right. But then again, you wouldn't research for this discussion anyways, giving further reason to believe that you're wrong. And the fact that you're not even on my level of learning tells me that you are either dumber than me, or you are lazy. Either way, that makes you less qualified to debate with me.
I don't care about your opinion about the Holocaust. You'd probably say that you don't have an opinion about that either.
That's a fiction novel. This is reality. Why should I take a book based on Orwell's perception of "Big Brother"?
Then where's your basic research paper? Because you did tell me previously that you don't research for a debate. And I have already told you that the article of Wikipedia is credible, because you can't prove otherwise. Then you proceeded to say that there is no such thing as fact. And I don't give a flying fuck about aspartame.
Being the philosopher that you have shown yourself to be, you should not have taken that comment to be so literal. You are trying to tell me that you don't like Wikipedia and was "reminding me" not to use it. Well, you're still trying to thrust your beliefs at me, whether you do it forcefully or leniently. Therefore, it makes you an imperialist. Therefore, it means you have the same mindset as the U.S. government and the terrorists, about your beliefs.
You know what? I'd rather not argue with you anymore. Too far off topic. Plus, this thesis paper sized quote fest is annoying the hell out of me. So, let's just call it a day and humor ourselves with Doppelganger. You can do it politely if you want. But I'd prefer to be insulting. Either way, we can acknowledge that Doppelganger is making less sense by the second.
And for the record, just realize that my insults to you are not authentically hateful. I do it to amuse myself. So, when I curse in my quotations above, just note that I'm only doing it to make a point.
Besides, you're not dumb anyways. You're averagely knowledgeable as far as I can tell. And the fact that you don't react so harshly to my insults makes you seem less irrational, unlike Doppel. So, I'll just finish with Doppel here. Fun debate though. I've got a lot of quoting to go.
Not at all. Save your pen and paper for making stick figure drawings of your family and your house in special education class. And you can challenge me if you want, but so far, I haven't contradicted myself one bit. You've just taken everything I have said out of context, because you're not only stupid, but you can't even speak proper fluent English.
Whoo boy, that's a tongue twister right there. Careful, you might obscure your point. Oh wait! You already have. By the way, I never called myself dumb. I called you dumb. Don't understand why I just said that? (you saying you are dumb). Also, why in God's name would I call myself dumb for not telling you why you're dumb? Besides, that's wrong in two ways, cuz I definitely did tell you why you're dumb. I said you are like an autistic kid. The fact that you have the same symptoms as him, socially, then I have further reason to believe you are autistic (I don't, I just think you're flat out retarded). And that's when you called me dumb for saying you're as dumb as an autistic kid.
In America, that phrasing gives it a positive connotation.
The problem with that is that in no post did I only criticize your grammar. You see, I called you stupid for the things you say, as well as how you say it. It's a 2 for 1 deal. Better cash in while the sale is hot!
But you're not one of them.
You didn't. You criticized me for making fun of your grammar. But I still don't care.
If I have such a complete lack of "arguements" in my posts, then why are you providing (bad) counterpoints for everything I say? You can't have a counterpoint without a point to counter.
Oh, you mean when you told me that you slept in the process of reading my post? Ouch, really got burned there. I gotta remember to stay off the grill next time XD
But onto my next point, I fail to see how I'm jumping to conclusions. An example of that would be, "the sky is blue, so the moon must be made of cheese!" See how there was no transition in thinking? However, my replies have been very methodical in that I respond to your statements contextually, as I can simply read it, because of your poor grammar. And all my assumptions in this thread, about you, have related to what you have said. Feel free to prove me wrong. But I highly doubt you will.
Other than the talk of you saying that I'm wrong (without stating reasons) and saying that I'm dumb, as well as saying that you were sleeping. I remain unscathed.
[/quote] my poor english (even worse then a grammar mistake, because you manage to completely misinterpretend an "english" sentence proving me you arent intelligent).
also funny you replyed to the wrong post for your own convenience.[/QUOTE]
How can you prove that I am not intelligent because I got the wrong idea from your poorly formed sentence. If you said "I fucked you", you can't say that I took it out of context just because you actually meant "I loved you".
I love making people look bad. It makes me look better. But at this point, since I'm so perfect (at least in comparison to you), it's more about maintaining my reputation.
Let's ignore the fact that I haven't lied thus far. Even if I did lie, if you can't tell me what I lied about, then why should I have to answer for it? As far as you would know, you're still wrong. Just a simple hypothetical.
How did the portion that you quoted have anything to do with me using other people's statements against you? As far as I can tell, that's me talking to you and about you, alone.
Bam. Goes to show how much you know. Equinox is a girl. Way to go. You just assumed the hell out of her. Now who is assuming things about other people? Go ahead and rationalize it. I already rationalized why I thought you were Italian. That way, you can shut up about something that happened as a result of your poor English.
How did I lie, exactly? First, we were debating about your poor grammar and why you were stupid. Now I'm lying? And if you knew that I would know which argument you were going to refer to, then why mention the topic at all? What a waste of energy.
Oh man, I saw this when I first read over your post and was anticipating this reply:
Ahem...how can my assumptions be false? So you're saying I was lying that I assumed you're Italian? On that basis, why are you complaining that I assumed that you're Italian?
Also, I had no idea that my (non-existent) lies were fully aware. If they are capable of consciousness, then holy shit! Someone call the Nobel Prize Committee! I just created the first conscious being!
Speaking of people who forget what's going on, what the hell does this have to do with what you quoted? And I don't recall having any troubles remembering my argument. I know exactly what I was saying. I'm just leading you on to see how deep of shit you will step into.
Why should I rely on you to confirm information when you are already misinformed? Being the retard you very well are, you probably don't know your ass from two bits of dry ice. And the only reason Italy is an issue is because you won't let go of the fact that I made that assumption based on the context of your sentence. That "context of your sentence" is almost getting annoying to say. But I'm having too much fun laughing at you to care.
I affiliated you with Mussolini on based on the assumption that you were Italian, so don't get your granny panties in a wad. Nor did I say that you were a fascist. I simply made fun of your supposed government because you made fun of mine. What was that saying you used that relates to this situation..."what goes around comes around". Yeah, that's it.
I'd love to. It's always fun to just marvel at how much better I am than you.
Based on the context of that sentence, it would be more than reasonable to say that you are admitting that you are Italian. But I guess that would be unfair, as I should ask your dumb ass in order to make a point, right?
And I do remember my first post. I mostly was intrigued with how you were so pompous in your attack on the U.S. and how you were basically calling us all stupid for believing it. I mostly addressed you out of contempt for your blatant bullshit spewing.
I have made a lot of insults, as there is so much to make fun of you for. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
I never said you had anything to do with Mussolini, other than that you supposedly lived in Italy, where he ruled. So, as a result of your verbal attack on America, I verbally attacked you about Italy. And I don't really care what your beliefs are because they do not pertain to many facts and to take an uninformed opinion into account would warp my own, almost as much as your opinion already is.
That's a dumb question. See...if I didn't remember the rest of this thread, then I wouldn't be able to answer. But since I am informed about what our debate is about, I can confidently say that you didn't. Besides, you'd be wrong, anyways. Then again, being wrong about one more thing wouldn't affect you much, as you are already, for the most part, wrong.
I said that I was going to assume that you were Italian based on context, since you were bitching out of telling me where you're from. And I have nothing against Italy. In fact, I recall saying in this thread that I've heard nothing but good things about Italy. In fact, I even saw pictures of Italy. Beautiful place. Made me want to learn Italian.
That's not the issue at all. I was saying that I was not trying to win you over, as much as I was trying to make you run away and cry. Way to not know what the hell we are talking about.
I can definitely count the number of times you told me, but I don't care. Besides, if you don't care if you're perceived to be justified, then why are you still arguing with me?
What's there to get? Nothing you say is logical. And the fact that you're a foreigner gives precedence to my argument that nothing you say is logical. So, perhaps, it's not so much that I don't get it, as it is that no English-speaking person can get it because your English sucks.
If you don't believe in I.Q., then don't use it as a a basis for an argument. How can you even appease yourself by making a counterpoint that goes against your own logic?
Once again, reading comprehension is not your strong-suit. Perhaps if you spoke better English, you'd know that by saying that my strategy is better than yours, I am indirectly acknowledging that this is how I win arguments. And I know that I won all my previous arguments because people told me about how well I did in stomping the shit out of their arguments.
All I can extrapolate from that miscarriage, that is a sentence, is that you are saying that perhaps I might be wrong. But then again, if I said that in one mole of hydrogen, there is 6.02 x 10^23 molecules. And you know what? I might be wrong about that. But since you can't prove me wrong, then why should I change my stance?
If you gave it any thought (even though I know you didn't even think when you were making your argument), you'd realize that by correcting your grammar and spelling, I'm doing you a favor, so you can speak and write better English.
Based on the context of your poorly written sentence. Therefore, this incident should give you better reason to take my advice on English. Who better to learn from than a native speaker? Hell, you should pay me for this.
Just because I assumed wrong about your nationality based on the context of your shitty sentence doesn't mean I can't understand anything. Last I checked, I scored a 97% on the SATs (American college exam) for reading comprehension. So suck on those nuts.
And that leads me into another point, if I assumed wrong, then don't just say I'm wrong. Instead of bashing your head against the keyboard, Correct me, you dumb fuck. As it seems you fail to explain anything, most of the time. The only reason you're explaining at all now is because I'm gradually pounding some common fucking sense into that dense skull of yours.
Looks like you're saying "wtf" as if you're in shock that you think that I can't turn it around on you. Well, have no fear, for there is no reason to be surprised, as I, indeed, can turn around that piece of shit point.
Not at all. Because I have not been wrong in the slightest to assume that you're Italian, because you wrote a sentence that implied that you were Italian. Instead of being a punk bitch and hiding your identity, you can go ahead and tell us what country your from, so you can show your pride for the country that you believe is so much greater than the U.S.
Good thing we came to the same understand. I don't know what it's like to be overshadowed by someone much smarter than I, but I sympathize for you. I guess you'll just keep arguing with me, so you can feel important that I am even recognizing your existence.
You still haven't proven or explained why I am supposedly contradicting myself. Man, this is as if I am waiting for a cripple to kick me.
So you're saying that you didn't tell me the documentary was from BBC?
I never said you searched for sources. And I fully recognized that you didn't cite your sources. In fact, that was one of the things I was making fun of you for.
And this documentary you saw...didn't you say it was from panorama BBC?
Once again, I said it with the understanding that your are Italian. So, I must ask you if I have to repeat myself in order for you to stop being a punk bitch with no understanding of the mechanics of debate? You know...many people choose to debate, remembering that they should choose their words carefully, as to not implicate the wrong things.
No, because at that rate, you have nothing to stay here for. You would have failed already if you were trying to appeal to everyone else, anyways.
First, in order to further your English skills, I must tell you that it is is supposed to be "too bad", as "too" shows excess. Also, in our country, a remark like that would be considered rhetorical, which means it would not be something to be answered, as it is meant to be more of an insult than a question demanding explanation.
I'll assume that you meant to say "I", instead of "you", in an effort to correct your poor grammar.
Haha, that's bullshit. Quantum Physics is too complicated. Calculus is too complicated. The explanation of what exactly makes you so stupid is complicated. That's wrong three times over, already. I'd go on and on. But if I did, you'd probably run away before I could pay attention you tearing up.
Okay, please don't let my verbal rape of Doppelganger stop others from continuing the discussion about Iraq. So, do you guys really think that the U.S. can stop an insurgency in Iraq, despite the fact that there is a flow of recruits into the country?