Frenchyd Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 GB122: The most intelligent people in the world agree that profanity is used when you're too stupid to think of a better word to say. Expand your vocabulary. Also, I thought you were saying "THOSE DAMN TERRORISTS DESERVE TO DIE". I COULD be mistaken, although I don't believe I am... However I doubt we can search that far back, so it's irrelevant I suppose. I'd also like to mention that just because we take sides with merfatcat doesn't mean we're brown nosers. (lookit how i treat newfound etc. ) There's a reason he's a moderator. He's intelligent. Plus, I just agree with what he's saying. I'm sure the same goes for Feral. Furthermore, Bush is not declaring war for oil. Trust me. He could sign them a CHECK if he wanted oil. I doubt he does. Whatever his motives are, I'm glad they've finally gotten rid of Saadam. He's an extremely evil man. What would you rather? "let's sit down and talk with him," .... Are you joking? That's going to accompish nothing. As much as you'd hate to admit it... sometimes politicians think these things through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acrylic Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by Frenchyd GB122: The most intelligent people in the world agree that profanity is used when you're too stupid to think of a better word to say. Expand your vocabulary. Also, I thought you were saying "THOSE DAMN TERRORISTS DESERVE TO DIE". I COULD be mistaken, although I don't believe I am... However I doubt we can search that far back, so it's irrelevant I suppose. I'd also like to mention that just because we take sides with merfatcat doesn't mean we're brown nosers. (lookit how i treat newfound etc. ) There's a reason he's a moderator. He's intelligent. Plus, I just agree with what he's saying. I'm sure the same goes for Feral. Furthermore, Bush is not declaring war for oil. Trust me. He could sign them a CHECK if he wanted oil. I doubt he does. Whatever his motives are, I'm glad they've finally gotten rid of Saadam. He's an extremely evil man. What would you rather? "let's sit down and talk with him," .... Are you joking? That's going to accompish nothing. As much as you'd hate to admit it... sometimes politicians think these things through. *Dresses as a politician* I tend to dissagree about the oil thing. I know someone in the marines who says a wee lil bit of the war is for oil.*undresses and changes into his Hello Kitty Pajajmas which I dont have....yet...* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guybrush122 Posted April 14, 2003 Author Share Posted April 14, 2003 Originally posted by The Feral Chicken No, I doubt he, or I, did. Why would that offend you, exactly? Why would my shirt offend HIM? For all you know, my family could be descendants of the Haymarket Martyrs. Originally posted by The Feral Chicken And you call other people contradictions. How oxymoronic is that statement? You say that Marx is a genius for suggesting that communism would bring about financial stability, yet then state that communism will never work? That's just dumb. I'm saying he's a genious but Communism won't work. How is that oxymoronic? Marx was a genious. That says nothing about whether or not Communism would work or fail. Originally posted by The Feral Chicken This is exactly what Mercat means...you seriously need a reality overhaul. It's no good saying "in a perfect world", because the world never will be perfect, and there's no point in trying to fight that. Did I ever say the world is ever going to be perfect. I'm just saying Communism would work in a perfect world. Pure statement. It says nothing about my beliefs. I'm anything BUT a Utopianist. Hell, if the world was perfect, what would we need an economic system for? Frenchy: Come on. Do you honestly believe that we're at war because we want to help? Come off it. We want the damn oil. We wanted it in '84 and we want it now. If we're so concerned about freeing people and neutralizing weopons, why the **** arent we in Korea right now? And no, sitting down and talking probably wouldn't help...though it wouldn't hurt. Maybe all Sadaam needed was a ****ing hug...but we kinda jumped the gun a little (don't take me literally, I know Sadaam doesn't just need a hug). Furthermore, why do we need to solve anything at all? Who died and made America the world's secret f*cking police? I understand that the people need help. Perhaps we should consider dropping food, not bombs? Under "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" there have been a total of 1276 reported civilian casualties. Iraqi freedom. Great. Somehow, with all this new technology and power I'm thinking we could find a way to keep civilian casualties to a low amount. Like none. I think, instead of war, we should just have a gigantic endless field of battle bots and have THEM duke it out. No deaths, no destruction. Of course, the whole thing will be produced by Comedy Central and, if you optimize your cable, you could watch it on pay per view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al-back from the BigWhoop Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Originally posted by The Feral Chicken As Mercat has continually stated, the actual amount of money that America would get from the oil is very low. the US gets only 40% of the oil that the american ppl need. Originally posted by The Feral Chicken And you call other people contradictions. How oxymoronic is that statement? You say that Marx is a genius for suggesting that communism would bring about financial stability, yet then state that communism will never work? That's just dumb. in theory, comunism brings financial stability. in pratic, it doesnt work cause ppl are lazy (not exactly, but thats kinda the main idea) Originally posted by The Feral Chicken This is exactly what Mercat means...you seriously need a reality overhaul. It's no good saying "in a perfect world", because the world never will be perfect, and there's no point in trying to fight that. but there is a better world frenchy, paying a check to saddam would get the us as dependent as they are now. they need to control the oil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchyd Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Originally posted by Guybrush122 Frenchy: Come on. Do you honestly believe that we're at war because we want to help? Come off it. We want the damn oil. We wanted it in '84 and we want it now. If we're so concerned about freeing people and neutralizing weopons, why the **** arent we in Korea right now? Bush doesn't want the oil. If he wanted the oil he would sign a check. Sure would be less expensive than this war is costing people. Secondly, I think the US has 3 targets in this war: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. They picked Iraq first because they can't lose. And I never thought that Bush was fighting this war to be helpful. But I'm in support of the war because it IS helping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al-back from the BigWhoop Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 as i said in my earlier posts, frenchy, paying a check to saddam would get the us as dependent as they are now. the us imports 60% of the oil used, they need to control the oil. thats why syria is the next target, not korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchyd Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Originally posted by Al-back from the BigWhoop as i said in my earlier posts, frenchy, paying a check to saddam would get the us as dependent as they are now. the us imports 60% of the oil used, they need to control the oil. thats why syria is the next target, not korea. why not take over canada, al? canada imports a lot more oil to the US than Iraq does, or any other middle eastern country. I stand by this has NOTHING to do with Oil. The world wouldn't let it be about Oil. If they took over, the world would snap on them. And I doubt Syria is the next target. Iran is the next target. If they haven't planned it yet, they will be. Iran will help the South gain control of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercatfat Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Yeah, Frenchy's pretty much right. Also, 1286 casualties, which may or may not be accurate, is nothing. At all. Like I've said time and time again, Sadaam has killed more people more brutally in the last month alone, most likely, than we will through the entire liberation of the country. Have you heard some of the things he's done to people? They're coming out in droves now. But hey, to satisfy you No blood for Oil types, here's an idea: make a car that runs on blood. That way, we aren't wasting resources or anything. Also, we would have colonized Venezula if we wanted oil. It's already at full production and won't take a decade to get into profitability. Also, the the person who posted about Stupid White Men, I recommend you read this: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html Moore makes a living out of lying and stretching the truth. Bowling for Columbine was not a documentary, and I can give proof if you'd like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natty Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 It's Guybrush's life, if he wants to wear a shirt like that he can, so some people might get offended, there's a lot of people who are offended by this war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NiKo Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 wow...natty said something so simple, yet so right... there's no point in arguing when it comes to issues like war there will always be 2 sides, with different aspects... so all your arguing, as clever as your points are, seems pretty stupid to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al-back from the BigWhoop Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 frenchy, i think its pretty clear why the us doesnt invade canada. In iraq they have saddam as an excuse, in syria they have the biological-weapon-are-hidden-there excuse, there is no excuse to invade canada. bsides, i dont think the us would win that easily against canada. and yes, the us is planning on invading syria, im not making all that up. bsides, bush isnt retarded enough to go around saying its all about oil, so frenchy's hipothesis is impossible. the us is going to have problems with iran, but not because they are evil. most of iranians are xiits, and the iraqi xiits will probably fight against the american govt in iraq. Originally posted by mercatfat make a car that runs on blood. That way, we aren't wasting resources or anything. hehe, that made me laugh. does taht make me a bad person? btw, niko, im not debating to change their minds, im discussing to gain more information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acrylic Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Originally posted by AcrylicGuitar (Post edited due to racism and spamtacular content) I dont think my post shoulda been edited...I was just replying to something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 I agree with NiKo and Natty, you have all given 'suggestions' albeit rather crude and insulting ones, but it should only take a simple post to do so. Instead you have turned this into a huge debate about the war when quite simply, Guybrush is not going to stand up and say 'you know what Mercat, you're right, I think you're right about everything. I have seen the error of my ways and will apologise to those retards for insulting their country and having different beliefs and generally being different, I should be just like you.' sorry, but it just doesn't happen that way and it never will. You’ve given your opinion, in fact you gave it about thirty posts ago, but for some reason you feel you need to expand on it a great deal. and I’m not just talking to Mercat, don't think I’m targeting you, it's everyone who gave their opinion and then went on about it. This is Guybrush’s life, we are not his master, we do not control him, we can only guide him and point him into what we think is the right direction when to many people this could very much be the wrong direction. I really think this has gone on long enough, if Guybrush wants to do this then let it be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al-back from the BigWhoop Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 why do you people hate debates so much? its not like you have to take a position. we all gave our suggestions to gb and he does with that wotever he wants, no1 is trying to control him or anything. as i said earlier im not debating to change their minds, im discussing to gain more information. thats how one gets smart, you know... am i really the only 1 who actually likes debating? i mean, i see every1 flaming each other, making enemies and stuff, am i really the only one who sees this as a friendly debate? if u dont like debates, you dont have to post here, i assume thats pretty obvious. ive debated a lot in these forums (with mek, gb122, fender, dinghy, feral, raven, etc.) and we are still good friends - except for feral, but not because of the debate, i got pissed at him cause after the debate he was so mad he started annoying the crap outta me and doing some quite unethic things which i dont think it would be healthy to bring it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 I don't mind debates, I think they are rather healthy and a good sources of entertainment for me. But there is a difference between an argument and a debate. This I would consider is an argument, because quite frankly, you are saying the same thing over and over again and still not getting through to each other. No one is ready to back down, no one is ready to agree to disagree, and all want to be right when all can't. The best example I can give of a debate (and sorry to the newbie’s who don't know what I’m talking about) was the moon landing thing a few months ago. Each and every post had the same argument, but more information to back it up each time. This was healthy because one called anyone ignorant for being 'wrong' (in their opinion). I really think this has hit it's quota for insults and flames and in my opinion, is going no where fast. But this is just my opinion; you don't have to take it if you don't want to. also, this may sound a little hypocritical (I’m talking about the whole post) but if someone doesn't get what I’m saying I would like them to understand it which may or may not be what you guys are doing, but to me it sounds like the same thing over and over again and after spending a good three years with a geography and ICT teacher who did almost the exact same thing, I think I can see the difference. and finally, I understand that I do not have to participate if I don't want to and a while ago I told myself that I wasn't going to participate in this topic anymore (I just didn't tell anyone because I thought that would be pointless, posting here just to tell you I’m not posting here.) but it came to a point where I had opinions of my own and I wanted them to be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al-back from the BigWhoop Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 yeah, in that matter the moon landing was a much better debate, but because it envolved many ppl and every1 added something. this one is a lil slow cause basicaly we have only mercatfat saying "im god, and all of you must obey me" and feral saying "nice insult". and then we have you, niko, and many others trying to end the topic. (mercatfat was taking it seriously at first, but then he just got silly). we need more ppl and information to get this more dynamic. hers wot i mean: by mercatfat Feral agrees with me because he realizes that I'm the voice of reason here. by frenchy Furthermore, Bush is not declaring war for oil. Trust me. He could sign them a CHECK if he wanted oil. by AL-b frenchy, paying a check to saddam would get the us as dependent as they are now. they need to control the oil by feral (not directly AT my post, i just dont remember exactly when he said that) thats just dumb by frenchy Bush doesn't want the oil. If he wanted the oil he would sign a check. by AL-b as i said in my earlier posts, frenchy, paying a check to saddam would get the us as dependent as they are now. the us imports 60% of the oil used, they need to control the oil. thats why syria is the next target, not korea. by frenchy why not take over canada, al? canada imports a lot more oil to the US than Iraq does, or any other middle eastern country. I stand by this has NOTHING to do with Oil. The world wouldn't let it be about Oil. If they took over, the world would snap on them. And I doubt Syria is the next target. Iran is the next target. by AL-b frenchy, i think its pretty clear why the us doesnt invade canada. In iraq they have saddam as an excuse, in syria they have the biological-weapon-are-hidden-there excuse, there is no excuse to invade canada. bsides, i dont think the us would win that easily against canada. and yes, the us is planning on invading syria, im not making all that up. bsides, bush isnt retarded enough to go around saying its all about oil, so frenchy's hipothesis is impossible. and then AC comes crying because feral edited his post im kinda hoping more ppl will join and make this blabering an actuall debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchyd Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Debates are fun This is all stuff I've wanted to yell at some kids since this war began, but haven't, so this is where it all comes out. Anyways, I just had a quick something to say, today, and that is if the US wanted Canada, Bush could take it over in less than 24 hours. No joke. We have no army. We have no navy. We have no protection. And I'd welcome him with open arms (like the real arms, not like the weapon kind of arms) PS: This isn't blabbering (from most anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natty At School Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Originally posted by NiKo wow...natty said something so simple, yet so right... there's no point in arguing when it comes to issues like war there will always be 2 sides, with different aspects... so all your arguing, as clever as your points are, seems pretty stupid to me. Well I admit I can't stand this war, regardless of whether it's for oil reasons or not. Obviously IMO Saddam couldn't have been much of a threat if him and his advisers or whatever you wanna call them have ran away into the sunset. I just think it's a case of Bush jr trying to get revenge on Saddam for him trying to kill his dad 13 or so years ago. I have no doubt that Bush will want something in return from the Iraqi people. He's a politition and I don't trust them, that's all I'm trying to say. However, if you trust Bush and support him and what he's doing then so be it, I have better things to do with my time then get into arguments about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acrylic Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Originally posted by Al-back from the BigWhoop and then AC comes crying because feral edited his post Yes...well, I didnt cry...I just got e-frustrated or if youre a mac user i-frustrated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al-back from the BigWhoop Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 no ac, u understood me wrong. i didnt mean that in the pejorative way, it is in your right to complain. and frenchy, again i repeat myself: Canada and US have strong trading relations, so bush wouldnt want to throw that all away. Besides, in iraq they have saddam as an excuse, in syria they have the biological-weapon-are-hidden-there excuse, there is no excuse to invade canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acrylic Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Originally posted by Al-back from the BigWhoop no ac, u understood me wrong. i didnt mean that in the pejorative way, it is in your right to complain. okie dokie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Originally posted by Al-back from the BigWhoop and frenchy, again i repeat myself: Canada and US have strong trading relations, so bush wouldnt want to throw that all away. Besides, in iraq they have saddam as an excuse, in syria they have the biological-weapon-are-hidden-there excuse, there is no excuse to invade canada. i think that wat frenchy was saying is that if bush wanted to, he could invade and take control of canada with no hassle. but yes, you've made it quite clear that he wouldn't want to anyway, but just hypothetically, if he wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feral Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Going off-off-topic a little: Remi, you say you have evidence disproving Moore's claims. I'd be interested to see this evidence (I don't disbelieve you, I'm just interested)...think you can present it, please ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBaron Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 First of all, this goes to everyone, America is not only USA, there are other countries in America, you know... Now, to Guybrush... Originally posted by Guybrush122 Hahahahaha. You're funny. I don't hate America because of some moronic fascists...I hate America because of it's.... Lies Incompotence Opression Trigger happy nature Political parties (we all have em, but I hate em) False democracy Corrupt legal system Did I mention lies? Corrupt Capitalist system (read Das Capital by Karl Marx and then read any book on the Capitalist theory...you'll realize that the Capitalist system in America could be highly improved) And, finally, Opression Did I mention opression and lies? I don't mean to be rude, but... CONGRATULATIONS, you've just described EVERY SINGLE GOVERMENT IN THE WORLD!!! Does that mean that you hate all countires in the world? Evil lies within man, so all goverments are corrupted, all systems have flaws and there are unfair things happening everywhere in this world... It's also our nature to think Now, correct me if I'm wrong (since I don't live in the US some of the following things may not be completely right): In your country, as long as I know, you get a decent FREE education until highschool, don't you? You can live decently even if you sweep streets for a living, don't you? If you don't live very well, you know that if you work hard at least your children will have that chance, don't you? Oppression? how your goverment opress people in your country? (if you mean people form other countries, then you're damn right) So, don't tell me you hate your country just because some guys were bothering you at school for your ideas. Let me talk you about REAL problems: Just to name a few things... In your country you may go to some authority to tell them about your problem with those guys and there's a chance, no matter how small it is, that they will at least listen to you, in my country it's the goverment itself who do that kind of stuff so there's absolutely noone you can tell about it. Think on when the goverment KILLS people who oppose them, not just single leaders like Martin Luther King, but just normal people, like you and me, who were on a protest Just in my city there were more people killed in the three weeks that lasted the war, THAN IN IRAK ITSELF, and what my goverment did about it? it took the weapons away from the police because it's controled by an opposition leader. In my country, 20% of the people is unemployed and 50% doens't have a real job (most of them just sell things on the streets for a living). What my goverment is doing about it? it fired half the personal of our main industry, leaving the engine of our economy severely damaged. I won't talk about education, lies, incopetence, etc. because I want to be brief. I also won't talk you about countries that are a LOT worse than mine, I'll just mention that there are countries where there isn't even neither FOOD nor WATER enough to feed the population (and some of those countries are also ruled by dictatorial goverments, BTW). So, instead of hating your country for the bad things, why don't you appreciate the good things it has? Instead of thinking on how you leave your country (to a place wich surely will have those same problems), why don't just work hard, so instead of being ruled by jerks like Bush, it's rule by smart people like you, who is aware of those problems? Again, I don't mean to be rude. As side note, using **** is not much better than using the real words, so please just try to don't use them at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scabb Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Originally posted by The Feral Chicken Going off-off-topic a little: Remi, you say you have evidence disproving Moore's claims. I'd be interested to see this evidence (I don't disbelieve you, I'm just interested)...think you can present it, please ? There is an article about the sins and wrong-doings that took place and ocurred in Bowling for Columbine right here, a whole website dedicated to watching Mikeys every move and then screaming real loud when they hear him tell some more of those half-truths right here, and a bunch of decent articles on the sinner that is Michael Moore located somewhere on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.