Are you? I'm cool. Your initial remark about people eating too much potatoes or some-such nonsense started the whole thing. You got pissy for no real reason. But yes, I am over it. Really, it was all in good fun.
again you cherry pick my posts for whatever you feel like saying to suit your emotions at the time
Are you over your media mind fuck yet is what I meant.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Alright, seriously. Calm down and let it go. You have gone from being kinda funny to just flat-out annoying ... Not that this is such a stretch.
I just shine a flashlight on you for what it is...that's all
Sorry to see you find reality annoying.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You and reality intersect only minimally, my friend.
I got you pegged pretty hard in that one though didn't I?
signed sealed and delivered.
maybe read backwards and see...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Are you over your media mind fuck yet is what I meant.
No, your incredible debating skills have not swayed me, if you must know. I will freely concede that people like Brynzie and abook have had an impact on my thinking around the Middle East. You just ride the coattails of these people ... They're like the BCC (well-informed, if not opinionated). You're more like Howard Stern.
No, your incredible debating skills have not swayed me, if you must know. I will freely concede that people like Brynzie and abook have had an impact on my thinking around the Middle East. You just ride the coattails of these people ... They're like the BCC (well-informed, if not opinionated). You're more like Howard Stern.
I haven't even given you the time you proclaim you deserve. You just come across like an asshole for some reason
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You even admitted it yourself before you contradicted yourself.
generalized comments on potatoes make you vindictive and spiteful apparently
yo...draw back on the meds a bit bro....
fire up those logic circuits and explode into space.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I haven't even given you the time you proclaim you deserve. You just come across like an asshole for some reason
And you don't? What, there's one asshole here, and you're some innocent victim? Honestly, I think we've both been acting like assholes. I am kind of tired of it.
I apologize. I am done with the scathing remarks. I would appreciate it if you'd respect other people's opinions, though, even if you do wish to poke holes in them. There's a way of doing this without triggering this kind of stuff (which I am equally responsible for). You seem to have a huge problem with the fact that I will not excuse Palestinian violence. You disagree? Fine. I'd appreciate not being told I am stupid because of it.
And you don't? What, there's one asshole here, and you're some innocent victim? Honestly, I think we've both been acting like assholes. I am kind of tired of it.
I apologize. I am done with the scathing remarks. I would appreciate it if you'd respect other people's opinions, though, even if you do wish to poke holes in them. There's a way of doing this without triggering this kind of stuff (which I am equally responsible for). You seem to have a huge problem with the fact that I will not excuse Palestinian violence. You disagree? Fine. I'd appreciate not being told I am stupid because of it.
If you could point where I've called you stupid in particular. If you take something personally from what I've said....well that's your conviction not mine. It only makes it reality for you if you believe what is said to to be true.
I take heat here all the time, because what I say is often against the mainstream understanding, I'm used to it. I expect it actually.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
If you could point where I've called you stupid in particular. If you take something personally from what I've said....well that's your conviction not mine. It only makes it reality for you if you believe what is said to to be true.
I take heat here all the time, because what I say is often against the mainstream understanding, I'm used to it. I expect it actually.
Well, and maybe you have caught me at a time when I can't handle the heat as well as I should be. There's a lot of shit going on. For the record, I do think that you were taking veiled shots at people on here, if not me specifically. If you didn't mean to do so, and I really am mistaken, cool.
where is the Human Rights declaration proclaiming the cruelty of having to listen to you two weiners moan at each other? ...
I'm not putting up with bullshit when I know I'm right.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Really? Then what was with all that thread-space we wasted?
Total bullshit, you were more than happy to shovel up and perpetuate at a personal attack level over and over in my thread.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Your thread? Uh huh. I figured all along that this whole thing was more about stroking your own ego than anything else.
Your incessant and ongoing personal attacks towards me are very insulting, and unnecessary.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
LADS... nobody's gonna listen or give a fuck about what either of you say if you can't debate it respectfully... you've both completely given up on the topic and are now just arguing which one of you is the biggest asshole
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
LADS... nobody's gonna listen or give a fuck about what either of you say if you can't debate it respectfully... you've both completely given up on the topic and are now just arguing which one of you is the biggest asshole
How bout we not draw attention to perpetuate it, but rather let it die instead.
k thanks.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
In related news. I think the US is fast becoming a repugnant country in world view.
Gotta create and kill some terrorists, and make the world a shittier place. Great plan. Kill and dominate Arabs and take their shit.
But you know Bush is a man of peace...and so are the psychopaths behind him that support it. Give murder a chance they cry.... set em up...knock em down.. bring em on.
" UNITED NATIONS, Jun 9 (OneWorld) - A prominent international rights watchdog has reacted sharply to the U.S. government's decision to further disengage itself from the Geneva-based Human Rights Council.
"The U.S. decision to walk away from the Council is counterproductive and short-sighted," said Juliette de Rivero, an advocacy director at the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), a nonprofit group that monitors and publicizes rights violations around the world.
The U.S. government declared Friday that it would now only engage the 47-member Council when it deemed necessary to discuss issues of "deep national interest."
"Our skepticism regarding the function of the Council in terms of fulfilling its mandate and its mission is well known," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. "It has a rather pathetic record."
The United States is one of only four nations that voted against the UN resolution that established the Council in 2006. Despite that, until now it had continued to take part in the Council meetings as an observer.
U.S. officials apparently briefed their European counterparts about Washington's decision to end its participation in the Council as debate was progressing over the rights situation in Myanmar.
The United States has been a vocal critic of the military regime in Myanmar (formerly Burma) for its suppression of political dissent and human rights violations for years, and has repeatedly advocated the imposition of sanctions on the authoritarian regime there.
Many critics say the U.S. decision was poorly timed, as the Council is beginning to show more positive signs in terms of monitoring worldwide abuses of human rights.
In this context, they cite the recent defeat of Sri Lanka in the UN General Assembly vote for Council membership. Sri Lanka lost its bid for reelection largely because its track record includes torture and disappearances.
Many critics agree the Council has failed to perform as well as expected, but also acknowledge the progress it has made in establishing international mechanisms to monitor rights violations.
In the past two years, the Council has not only done substantial reporting on cases of torture, gender violence, and extra-judicial executions, they say, but it has put a spotlight on the ongoing rights crises in Myanmar, Somalia, and Sudan.
Rights activists acknowledge, however, that in its first two years, the Council has failed to pay due attention to more than 20 different places that are in dire need of monitoring.
Still, overall, they generally rate the Council's work as relatively satisfactory, and many believe full U.S. participation could have significantly improved the Council's ability to protect abused populations worldwide.
"Whatever the Council's problems," said Human Rights Watch's de Rivero, "[the U.S.] decision is a victory for abusive states and a betrayal of those fighting for their rights worldwide." De Rivero and other rights activists say the Sri Lanka vote is an indication that the Council is willing to fight the abusers of human rights.
In his view, "Washington's hands-off approach to the Council undermined it from the start. It's ironic that the U.S. shares responsibility for the shortcomings it's now using to justify its withdrawal from the Council."
According to some observers, one reason the United States is disengaging itself from the Council is the growing opposition from a vast majority of developing countries, which see the U.S. stance on human rights as hypocritical.
In electing the first Council members two years ago, the United States chose not to contest elections because it was almost certain to have lost the vote, largely due to its unconditional support for Israel in that country's ongoing conflict with the Palestinian people.
Observers think the United States is ill-placed to confront many international situations of human rights abuse because it has lost much credibility by refusing to let international experts investigate alleged rights abuses of Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Despite this, many advocacy groups and countries with relatively untarnished records on human rights think having the United States at the negotiating table is important to building a more effective world body on human rights.
"Instead of ceding the field to those who want to shield abusers from scrutiny," said de Rivero, "the U.S. should have redoubled its efforts to make the Council work as it should."
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Maybe I should tell a war veteran to go fuck themselves and call them mentally ill for expressing opinions that disagree with mine, and then not edit my posts out of respect, but subsequently reaffirm my conviction afterwards to rub it in further.
Maybe I'll understand then.
Choosing the path of humanity, and basic human dignity, and respect is highly over rated these days apparently.
Who knew?
I learn something new every day
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Maybe I should tell a war veteran to go fuck themselves and call them mentally ill for expressing opinions that disagree with mine, and then not edit my posts out of respect, but subsequently reaffirm my conviction afterwards to rub it in further.
Maybe I'll understand then.
Choosing the path of humanity, and basic human dignity, and respect is highly over rated these days apparently.
Who knew?
I learn something new every day
It's simply what people resort to when they have no argument but refuse to concede. It's a way of diverting attention from the fact that they're wrong and that they know they're wrong. I was banned for two weeks just a short time ago for responding to such horseshit tactics.
Maybe I should tell a war veteran to go fuck themselves and call them mentally ill for expressing opinions that disagree with mine, and then not edit my posts out of respect, but subsequently reaffirm my conviction afterwards to rub it in further.
Maybe I'll understand then.
Choosing the path of humanity, and basic human dignity, and respect is highly over rated these days apparently.
Who knew?
I learn something new every day
All your personal attacks on me are real indicative of a respect for basic human dignity. You're deep-down such a nice guy ... right.
For the record, I did not post what I did because his opinion disagrees with mine. He basically lumped me in with all the "armchair faggots" or whatever term he used, and no, I did not appreciate that, especially when I have said nothing to deserve that kind of bashing. I no point in this thread or any other have I advocated for more war, or for needless killing. That's actually what you've been doing by excusing violence.
Actually, I am getting really tired of your fixation on me, Roland. Even AFTER I apologized to you. Basic social skills would dictate some degree of reciprocity.
so you see no difference in the level of bias between the unhrc/desmond tutu and the jerusalem center for public affairs?
thats because frankly i haven't done any.
No, I don't. They are both biased sources, arguably. In all honesty, both takes are worth reading, though, because the truth generally lies somewhere between two biased sources.
Despite all the bullshit that Roland continues to direct my way, in a fashion that suggests that he is really quite disturbingly fixated on me, I do read everything he posts, and I read the stuff Brynzie posts ... I believe in reading stuff from both sides of the fence. If I post an Isreali-biased source on here, its only to balance things out (not to mention the the fact that these sources DO contain valid points, just like the pro-Palestine ones do).
Comments
Alright, seriously. Calm down and let it go. You have gone from being kinda funny to just flat-out annoying ... Not that this is such a stretch.
again you cherry pick my posts for whatever you feel like saying to suit your emotions at the time
Are you over your media mind fuck yet is what I meant.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I just shine a flashlight on you for what it is...that's all
Sorry to see you find reality annoying.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You and reality intersect only minimally, my friend.
I got you pegged pretty hard in that one though didn't I?
signed sealed and delivered.
maybe read backwards and see...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
No, your incredible debating skills have not swayed me, if you must know. I will freely concede that people like Brynzie and abook have had an impact on my thinking around the Middle East. You just ride the coattails of these people ... They're like the BCC (well-informed, if not opinionated). You're more like Howard Stern.
Um, no. Whatever you wish to believe, though.
I haven't even given you the time you proclaim you deserve. You just come across like an asshole for some reason
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You even admitted it yourself before you contradicted yourself.
generalized comments on potatoes make you vindictive and spiteful apparently
yo...draw back on the meds a bit bro....
fire up those logic circuits and explode into space.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
And you don't? What, there's one asshole here, and you're some innocent victim? Honestly, I think we've both been acting like assholes. I am kind of tired of it.
I apologize. I am done with the scathing remarks. I would appreciate it if you'd respect other people's opinions, though, even if you do wish to poke holes in them. There's a way of doing this without triggering this kind of stuff (which I am equally responsible for). You seem to have a huge problem with the fact that I will not excuse Palestinian violence. You disagree? Fine. I'd appreciate not being told I am stupid because of it.
You're hiding behind the whole "generalized comments" thing.
If you could point where I've called you stupid in particular. If you take something personally from what I've said....well that's your conviction not mine. It only makes it reality for you if you believe what is said to to be true.
I take heat here all the time, because what I say is often against the mainstream understanding, I'm used to it. I expect it actually.
This is my viewpoint on the Palestinian plight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UWPV-3hZEw
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Well, and maybe you have caught me at a time when I can't handle the heat as well as I should be. There's a lot of shit going on. For the record, I do think that you were taking veiled shots at people on here, if not me specifically. If you didn't mean to do so, and I really am mistaken, cool.
And polaris wins it in the end.
I'm not putting up with bullshit when I know I'm right.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Really? Then what was with all that thread-space we wasted?
Total bullshit, you were more than happy to shovel up and perpetuate at a personal attack level over and over in my thread.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Your thread? Uh huh. I figured all along that this whole thing was more about stroking your own ego than anything else.
i would be a signatory to that declaration.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Your incessant and ongoing personal attacks towards me are very insulting, and unnecessary.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
LADS... nobody's gonna listen or give a fuck about what either of you say if you can't debate it respectfully... you've both completely given up on the topic and are now just arguing which one of you is the biggest asshole
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
How bout we not draw attention to perpetuate it, but rather let it die instead.
k thanks.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Gotta create and kill some terrorists, and make the world a shittier place. Great plan. Kill and dominate Arabs and take their shit.
But you know Bush is a man of peace...and so are the psychopaths behind him that support it. Give murder a chance they cry.... set em up...knock em down.. bring em on.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/20080609/wl_oneworld/45361608371213052239
" UNITED NATIONS, Jun 9 (OneWorld) - A prominent international rights watchdog has reacted sharply to the U.S. government's decision to further disengage itself from the Geneva-based Human Rights Council.
"The U.S. decision to walk away from the Council is counterproductive and short-sighted," said Juliette de Rivero, an advocacy director at the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), a nonprofit group that monitors and publicizes rights violations around the world.
The U.S. government declared Friday that it would now only engage the 47-member Council when it deemed necessary to discuss issues of "deep national interest."
"Our skepticism regarding the function of the Council in terms of fulfilling its mandate and its mission is well known," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. "It has a rather pathetic record."
The United States is one of only four nations that voted against the UN resolution that established the Council in 2006. Despite that, until now it had continued to take part in the Council meetings as an observer.
U.S. officials apparently briefed their European counterparts about Washington's decision to end its participation in the Council as debate was progressing over the rights situation in Myanmar.
The United States has been a vocal critic of the military regime in Myanmar (formerly Burma) for its suppression of political dissent and human rights violations for years, and has repeatedly advocated the imposition of sanctions on the authoritarian regime there.
Many critics say the U.S. decision was poorly timed, as the Council is beginning to show more positive signs in terms of monitoring worldwide abuses of human rights.
In this context, they cite the recent defeat of Sri Lanka in the UN General Assembly vote for Council membership. Sri Lanka lost its bid for reelection largely because its track record includes torture and disappearances.
Many critics agree the Council has failed to perform as well as expected, but also acknowledge the progress it has made in establishing international mechanisms to monitor rights violations.
In the past two years, the Council has not only done substantial reporting on cases of torture, gender violence, and extra-judicial executions, they say, but it has put a spotlight on the ongoing rights crises in Myanmar, Somalia, and Sudan.
Rights activists acknowledge, however, that in its first two years, the Council has failed to pay due attention to more than 20 different places that are in dire need of monitoring.
Still, overall, they generally rate the Council's work as relatively satisfactory, and many believe full U.S. participation could have significantly improved the Council's ability to protect abused populations worldwide.
"Whatever the Council's problems," said Human Rights Watch's de Rivero, "[the U.S.] decision is a victory for abusive states and a betrayal of those fighting for their rights worldwide." De Rivero and other rights activists say the Sri Lanka vote is an indication that the Council is willing to fight the abusers of human rights.
In his view, "Washington's hands-off approach to the Council undermined it from the start. It's ironic that the U.S. shares responsibility for the shortcomings it's now using to justify its withdrawal from the Council."
According to some observers, one reason the United States is disengaging itself from the Council is the growing opposition from a vast majority of developing countries, which see the U.S. stance on human rights as hypocritical.
In electing the first Council members two years ago, the United States chose not to contest elections because it was almost certain to have lost the vote, largely due to its unconditional support for Israel in that country's ongoing conflict with the Palestinian people.
Observers think the United States is ill-placed to confront many international situations of human rights abuse because it has lost much credibility by refusing to let international experts investigate alleged rights abuses of Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Despite this, many advocacy groups and countries with relatively untarnished records on human rights think having the United States at the negotiating table is important to building a more effective world body on human rights.
"Instead of ceding the field to those who want to shield abusers from scrutiny," said de Rivero, "the U.S. should have redoubled its efforts to make the Council work as it should."
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Maybe I'll understand then.
Choosing the path of humanity, and basic human dignity, and respect is highly over rated these days apparently.
Who knew?
I learn something new every day
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It's simply what people resort to when they have no argument but refuse to concede. It's a way of diverting attention from the fact that they're wrong and that they know they're wrong. I was banned for two weeks just a short time ago for responding to such horseshit tactics.
so you see no difference in the level of bias between the unhrc/desmond tutu and the jerusalem center for public affairs?
thats because frankly i haven't done any.
All your personal attacks on me are real indicative of a respect for basic human dignity. You're deep-down such a nice guy ... right.
For the record, I did not post what I did because his opinion disagrees with mine. He basically lumped me in with all the "armchair faggots" or whatever term he used, and no, I did not appreciate that, especially when I have said nothing to deserve that kind of bashing. I no point in this thread or any other have I advocated for more war, or for needless killing. That's actually what you've been doing by excusing violence.
Actually, I am getting really tired of your fixation on me, Roland. Even AFTER I apologized to you. Basic social skills would dictate some degree of reciprocity.
No, I don't. They are both biased sources, arguably. In all honesty, both takes are worth reading, though, because the truth generally lies somewhere between two biased sources.
Despite all the bullshit that Roland continues to direct my way, in a fashion that suggests that he is really quite disturbingly fixated on me, I do read everything he posts, and I read the stuff Brynzie posts ... I believe in reading stuff from both sides of the fence. If I post an Isreali-biased source on here, its only to balance things out (not to mention the the fact that these sources DO contain valid points, just like the pro-Palestine ones do).