Quake3World

prince1000 wrote:
my country is filled with people that don't know themselves. i think canis knows who he is...whether you approve or not.

Why thanks!

Canis wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

prince1000 wrote:

no way, he's far too analytical.

he's not analytical when it comes to the USA. When it comes to the homeland he's in major denial

in many other ways he seems like a normal human

Like I said, you have absolutely no grasp on reality. As long as you keep viewing the world from your little shell of an existance you'll never get anywhere.

lol

i understand how the world works much better than you. Perhaps you'd like to tell us again, about how the Vietnam war was necessary and right because of the spread of Communism despite the 3.5 million Viets who died. Or maybe you should give us your take again on any U.S. related topic.

go for it

Freakaloin wrote:dave is saying he is stoopid but even he know oreilly is full of crap...thats ownage...ur a moron...

if he's too stupid to argue a point, then his opion of bill being full of crap doesn't count for anything. you're both morons.

gee that Letterman sure is a left wing blowhard lol

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

Canis wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: he's not analytical when it comes to the USA. When it comes to the homeland he's in major denial

in many other ways he seems like a normal human

Like I said, you have absolutely no grasp on reality. As long as you keep viewing the world from your little shell of an existance you'll never get anywhere.

lol

i understand how the world works much better than you. Perhaps you'd like to tell us again, about how the Vietnam war was necessary and right because of the spread of Communism despite the 3.5 million Viets who died. Or maybe you should give us your take again on any U.S. related topic.

go for it

I never said it was necessary, but I rather argued the relevance it had in the general american mindset, and how it was perceived by many people during the time. Understandably, given the limits of the shell you're in, you refuse to see that, even to this day and still persist on slating my position on that argument as something it was not. You're pathetic...and your views on the world are skewed and narrow minded.

To be fair Canis, you did argue it was necessary, as well as arguing that it couldn't have been illegal, because you believed there were good intentions behind it.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:[i understand how the world works much better than you. Perhaps you'd like to tell us again, about how the Vietnam war was necessary and right because of the spread of Communism despite the 3.5 million Viets who died. Or maybe you should give us your take again on any U.S. related topic.

I see you are proving my point about left wingers. Your neck must get tired always looking at where you've been.

MidnightQ4 wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:[i understand how the world works much better than you. Perhaps you'd like to tell us again, about how the Vietnam war was necessary and right because of the spread of Communism despite the 3.5 million Viets who died. Or maybe you should give us your take again on any U.S. related topic.

I see you are proving my point about left wingers. Your neck must get tired always looking at where you've been.

yeah why bother with history. nothing to learn there.

R00k wrote:To be fair Canis, you did argue it was necessary, as well as arguing that it couldn't have been illegal, because you believed there were good intentions behind it.

I argued that it wasnt illegal, because of the basis of who's going to stop it and the definition of "illegality" in the anarchic nature of the nation-state based world. On that scale, nothing is legal/illegal. It's all based on morals, and even those are minimal given the selfish nature of that system. I mentioned necessity for those who were anti-communism, given the narrow mindset of the administration and the world-view on communism. I'd argue that to Bush, attacking iraq for American safety is necessary, even though I dont agree with it personally.

MidnightQ4 wrote: here's how it breaks down:


Right wingers:

Think we should "do the right thing" even if it will be unpopular with some pussies out there.

With an ever-changing definition of what the 'right thing' is, as well as constantly changing justifications for doing it. In other words, never revealing the real motivations. The Neocons studied under a doctrine that believes in the 'noble lie.' Which means that they believe they have to carry the burden of truth themselves, to protect everyone else from it.

MidnightQ4 wrote:Think people should help themselves and not expect handouts.

Except when it comes to people and companies who already have lots of money. Those people deserve large handouts, because they are heros for churning so hard on the wheels of the economy - even if their money never leaves their slush funds, tax havens or investment schemes.

MidnightQ4 wrote:Find the best solution to a problem at the time, and then take action.

And be sure you do not take advice from anyone with former experience in the matter. Believe you are right, even if you have no basis in fact to think so, and never listen to anyone except the people who already agree with you.

MidnightQ4 wrote:Realize you can always find fault with something in hindsight if you look hard enough, but that is no reason to sit by and do nothing for fear of failing.

I pretty much agree with this to the extent that it is a fairly honest criticism of the Democratic party.

MidnightQ4 wrote:Left wingers:

Refuse to give viable options to a situation until they can use hindsight to point out what "should have been" done.

Mostly agree with this as well - again though, I am talking about the Democratic party - not the liberal ideals in general.

MidnightQ4 wrote:Don't feel that the end goal (i.e. protecting our longterm security) should come with any sacrafice.

That is a ridiculous exaggeration, and I'm sure you realize it.

MidnightQ4 wrote:Do not feel responsibilty for the future, but instead prefer a course of inaction.

Not every thing can be solved by political or military action (i.e. the Drug War, Vietnam) - you contradict yourself by saying you believe in personal responsibility, but also believe in the government to solve problems that you can't explain or solve yourself.
Just because the Democratic politicians suffer from vegetative states doesn't mean that all liberal initiatives are based on inaction. I imagine many of the things you would consider inaction on my part, would really be things that I don't believe the government has any business meddling with.

MidnightQ4 wrote:Expect everyone to be taken care of by the government.

Some do. Too many do, probably. But that's not to say I oppose national health care or Social Security. Those aren't handouts, they are programs which help take care of the people on whose backs this economy rides to begin with.

MidnightQ4 wrote: Right wingers:

Think we should "do the right thing" even if it will be unpopular with some pussies out there.

Think people should help themselves and not expect handouts.

Find the best solution to a problem at the time, and then take action.

Realize you can always find fault with something in hindsight if you look hard enough, but that is no reason to sit by and do nothing for fear of failing.


Left wingers:

Refuse to give viable options to a situation until they can use hindsight to point out what "should have been" done.

Don't feel that the end goal (i.e. protecting our longterm security) should come with any sacrafice.

Do not feel responsibilty for the future, but instead prefer a course of inaction.

Expect everyone to be taken care of by the government.

I agree wholeheartedly. Right-wingers, in contrast to pussy lefties, have already been thoroughly proactive on issues such as global warming, renewable energy, campaign reform, advancing gay rights, scientific progress, education, and more.

They definitely take responsibility for the effect their actions will have on the future (unlike DUMB-ocrats) whether it be financial and economic stability through wise spending, or amending the constitution to exclude sinful acts, or changing the curriculum to protect our children from science.

And unlike those crybaby pussy commies, right-wingers also understand that the role of the gov't is not to care for its citizens, but to protect them from freedom-hating (non-Christian) religious zealous and other non-americans.

Canis wrote:

R00k wrote:To be fair Canis, you did argue it was necessary, as well as arguing that it couldn't have been illegal, because you believed there were good intentions behind it.

I argued that it wasnt illegal, because of the basis of who's going to stop it and the definition of "illegality" in the anarchic nature of the nation-state based world. On that scale, nothing is legal/illegal. It's all based on morals, and even those are minimal given the selfish nature of that system. I mentioned necessity for those who were anti-communism, given the narrow mindset of the administration and the world-view on communism. I'd argue that to Bush, attacking iraq for American safety is necessary, even though I dont agree with it personally.

Oh well, no reason to dive back into that debate again. lol

MidnightQ4 wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:[i understand how the world works much better than you. Perhaps you'd like to tell us again, about how the Vietnam war was necessary and right because of the spread of Communism despite the 3.5 million Viets who died. Or maybe you should give us your take again on any U.S. related topic.

I see you are proving my point about left wingers. Your neck must get tired always looking at where you've been.

Speak for yourself, since I seem to remember you citing Hiroshima as evidence that those we "liberate" will love us forever. Oh wait, was that something that happened in the past, too? I'm confused.

R00k wrote:

Canis wrote:

R00k wrote:To be fair Canis, you did argue it was necessary, as well as arguing that it couldn't have been illegal, because you believed there were good intentions behind it.

I argued that it wasnt illegal, because of the basis of who's going to stop it and the definition of "illegality" in the anarchic nature of the nation-state based world. On that scale, nothing is legal/illegal. It's all based on morals, and even those are minimal given the selfish nature of that system. I mentioned necessity for those who were anti-communism, given the narrow mindset of the administration and the world-view on communism. I'd argue that to Bush, attacking iraq for American safety is necessary, even though I dont agree with it personally.

Oh well, no reason to dive back into that debate again. lol

Agreed. I just wish it would have been clearer.

MidnightQ4 wrote:

seremtan wrote:

Canis wrote:...a left-wing blowhard...

i'm endlessly amused by what americans consider "left-wing"...

here's how it breaks down:


Right wingers:

Think we should "do the right thing" even if it will be unpopular with some pussies out there.

Think people should help themselves and not expect handouts.

Find the best solution to a problem at the time, and then take action.

Realize you can always find fault with something in hindsight if you look hard enough, but that is no reason to sit by and do nothing for fear of failing.


Left wingers:

Refuse to give viable options to a situation until they can use hindsight to point out what "should have been" done.

Don't feel that the end goal (i.e. protecting our longterm security) should come with any sacrafice.

Do not feel responsibilty for the future, but instead prefer a course of inaction.

Expect everyone to be taken care of by the government.

wow that's some fucking deep analysis there

seremtan wrote: i'm endlessly amused by what americans consider "left-wing"...

In the USA, the Right won the conceptual wars a long time ago. All the rest is limp-wristed maneuvering.

werldhed wrote:

MidnightQ4 wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:[i understand how the world works much better than you. Perhaps you'd like to tell us again, about how the Vietnam war was necessary and right because of the spread of Communism despite the 3.5 million Viets who died. Or maybe you should give us your take again on any U.S. related topic.

I see you are proving my point about left wingers. Your neck must get tired always looking at where you've been.

Speak for yourself, since I seem to remember you citing Hiroshima as evidence that those we "liberate" will love us forever. Oh wait, was that something that happened in the past, too? I'm confused.

haah wow.


in my synopsis of left wingers I was pointing out how they typically offer no solutions, but then are quick to point out the flaws if everything doesn't go just perfect, such as with the Iraq war. Do you deny that they do this?

However using completely relevant evidence such as Japan's love for America 50 years after we blew them up to reinforce my point that Iraq could turn out the same way is something completely different than what you are talking about.

If you want to look back at the past as an example of what to do now or in the future then that's one thing. But whining and bitching about how bad intel is a justification to never have gone into Iraq is just pure stupidity, since at the time we made the decision on what we knew to be the best information we had, and it was corroborated by many countries as Bill properly pointed out when he owned Dave's face. You can't point at evidence that was unknown at the time, and then use that as the basis for your arguement. That's basically saying nothing should ever be done because it might turn out to be wrong after you find out more facts later on.

Funny, O'Reilly was finally treated the same way he treats his own guests when he disagrees with their point of view.

Canis wrote:

R00k wrote:To be fair Canis, you did argue it was necessary, as well as arguing that it couldn't have been illegal, because you believed there were good intentions behind it.

I argued that it wasnt illegal, because of the basis of who's going to stop it and the definition of "illegality" in the anarchic nature of the nation-state based world. On that scale, nothing is legal/illegal. It's all based on morals, and even those are minimal given the selfish nature of that system. I mentioned necessity for those who were anti-communism, given the narrow mindset of the administration and the world-view on communism. I'd argue that to Bush, attacking iraq for American safety is necessary, even though I dont agree with it personally.

so there you have it. i rest my case.

the analytical mind of canis

the geneva conventions don't exist, he's not in denial etc etc. we've been through it all before...

Canis and his ilk are destroying humanity

PhoeniX wrote:This calls for a...

=

+

MidnightQ4 wrote:in my synopsis of left wingers I was pointing out how they typically offer no solutions, but then are quick to point out the flaws if everything doesn't go just perfect, such as with the Iraq war.

no, what happens is that any and all alternatives to the pro-war right-wingnut 'solutions' are ignored and left mostly unreported, leaving idiots like you ignorant as to their existence

suppression followed by denial - it's the wingnut way!

MidnightQ4 wrote:

werldhed wrote:

MidnightQ4 wrote: I see you are proving my point about left wingers. Your neck must get tired always looking at where you've been.

Speak for yourself, since I seem to remember you citing Hiroshima as evidence that those we "liberate" will love us forever. Oh wait, was that something that happened in the past, too? I'm confused.

haah wow.


in my synopsis of left wingers I was pointing out how they typically offer no solutions, but then are quick to point out the flaws if everything doesn't go just perfect, such as with the Iraq war. Do you deny that they do this?

However using completely relevant evidence such as Japan's love for America 50 years after we blew them up to reinforce my point that Iraq could turn out the same way is something completely different than what you are talking about.

If you want to look back at the past as an example of what to do now or in the future then that's one thing. But whining and bitching about how bad intel is a justification to never have gone into Iraq is just pure stupidity, since at the time we made the decision on what we knew to be the best information we had, and it was corroborated by many countries as Bill properly pointed out when he owned Dave's face. You can't point at evidence that was unknown at the time, and then use that as the basis for your arguement. That's basically saying nothing should ever be done because it might turn out to be wrong after you find out more facts later on.

Jesus Christ. Are you following along or not? You tried to blow off the point Puff was making by saying that "looking back at where we've been" is what lefties do. However, it's okay for you to "look back at where we've been" when it suits your needs?

"Japan loves us! Therefore we should liberate Iraq."
"Vietnam was a farce? That's just lefties unable to look forward."

That was my point. But as long as you're asking, yes, I do deny that liberals don't offer solutions. What about all the issues I mentioned in the previous post? As for the war, I offered a solution way back before it started: Don't go to war! How about that? That was a solution, but I guess since it didn't involve machismo and dumbfuckery, it must not be the right solution.

But let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that you are right -- let's pretend all lefties do is look back and point out flaws. Contrast that to chicken-hawks like yourself who jumped on faulty intelligence, fucked things up, and then refused to admit a problem. "Stay the course!"
You tell me which is the better option.

And don't bother the faulty intelligence argument again. It didn't work in the last thread, either.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

Canis wrote:

R00k wrote:To be fair Canis, you did argue it was necessary, as well as arguing that it couldn't have been illegal, because you believed there were good intentions behind it.

I argued that it wasnt illegal, because of the basis of who's going to stop it and the definition of "illegality" in the anarchic nature of the nation-state based world. On that scale, nothing is legal/illegal. It's all based on morals, and even those are minimal given the selfish nature of that system. I mentioned necessity for those who were anti-communism, given the narrow mindset of the administration and the world-view on communism. I'd argue that to Bush, attacking iraq for American safety is necessary, even though I dont agree with it personally.

so there you have it. i rest my case.

the analytical mind of canis

the geneva conventions don't exist, he's not in denial etc etc. we've been through it all before...

Canis and his ilk are destroying humanity

You ARE the stupidest thing that has ever walked the planet. I only used to think it was speculation on my part.

oh i know. tell us again how the U.S. war planners didn't realize that bombing all the Vietnamese people's crops would lead to them starving.

Remember to keep the arguments straight, I claimed it wasnt their direct intent to starve civilians (ie: they didnt go there to just kill off a bunch of people), but rather to starve out the enemy resistance, which ended up in collateral being the civilians. These details will be debatable forever and since we both know where each stands on the issue, there's really no point in opening them back up again. Overall its really a pointless argument, but you insist on trying to prove something in your childish attempts to belittle me. Keep it up.