Either you're dense, or goading him. I've never seen FFG afraid to argue anything.
I don't click on Roland's links and haven't for months. If he can make an argument in his own words, and cite sources, that would be one thing. But his MO is to post a link and think that the link is the argument. Lots of people here don't have any desire to sit around clicking Roland's links.
Then you're opining blindly for what reasons specifically???
slap...
if you actually looked you would have already saved yourself time whining about it....Mr no time..
your logic is frightening.
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 any event....a closed mind catches no knowledge
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.
LOL...no, I didn't watch it. And regardless of what it is, I'm quite sure I could argue with it.
If you want to argue, make your case. But please don't pretend it's not ironic to call someone chickenshit, anonymously, on a message board, whilst hiding behind the arguments of others in a youtube link.
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.
Seeming as the UN has taken no direct action against the US, nor has it even attempted to, they have a different interpretation of their law than you do.
The UN is only as strong as its weakest link.....the US
LOL...no, I didn't watch it. And regardless of what it is, I'm quite sure I could argue with it.
If you want to argue, make your case. But please don't pretend it's not ironic to call someone chickenshit, anonymously, on a message board, whilst hiding behind the arguments of others in a youtube link.
get real.. If the sky is blue why bother writing an essay saying so because someone is too damn lazy and defiant (or whatever the strange case may be) to participate effectively. Yeesh...
And talking about saving time. My time is just as valuable as anyone else's thank you very much. If I can summarize it in a timely manner then so be it...
I can see all the threads you start...fucking zillions
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.
The UN is only as strong as its weakest link.....the US
If you're going to try to count the weak links in the UN, you best be prepared to make a bigger list.
Certainly in many cases the US has served to undermine, subvert, and generally derail the UN, but we are far from alone. As it stands today, the UN is a body of convenience, not a body of sovereign principle. And that's much bigger than "the US".
If the sky is blue why bother writing an essay saying so because someone is too damn lazy and defiant (or whatever the strange case may be) to participate effectively.
You have no obligation to write an essay, or even debate with me. I've laid out my terms: if you want to debate, make a case. If you don't wish to do so, that's cool, regardless of your reasoning.
And talking about saving time. My time is just as valuable as anyone else's thank you very much. If I can summarize it in a timely manner then so be it...
Yes, so be it.
I can see all the threads you start...fucking zillions
Then you're opining blindly for what reasons specifically???
Not blindly opining. I was specifically opining about someone who though FFG was afraid to debate. I did not opine about the video or the topic because I haven't watched the video.
if you actually looked you would have already saved yourself time whining about it....Mr no time..
Check again. I didn't say I didn't have time to watch your videos. I merely have no desire to click your links. I do admit I was intrigued enough last month to break my rule (the silly thread linking Columbine and Israel), but it only reinforced why I made my rule in the first place.
I can't watch the whole video without patience beyond my capabilities at this time. I swear it's like I'm on dial up.
Anywho - ILLEGAL!!!!
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Not blindly opining. I was specifically opining about someone who though FFG was afraid to debate. I did not opine about the video or the topic because I haven't watched the video.
Please don't hurt yourself.
Check again. I didn't say I didn't have time to watch your videos. I merely have no desire to click your links. I do admit I was intrigued enough last month to break my rule (the silly thread linking Columbine and Israel), but it only reinforced why I made my rule in the first place.
Thank you. I'm not entirely sure what logical fallacy you're trying to highlight, though.
Yet you have time to waste your time complain and fanning your farts... yes I can see that much.
You have no point except hot air, I can see that also.
your logic is stunning once again
edit: and out of all my threads you focus on the bad ones and hold them up like a shiny turd you pulled from your butt...congratulations.
sorry for not being flawlessly perfect and to your most gracious supreme liking..
what-fucking-ever..
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 can't watch the whole video without patience beyond my capabilities at this time. I swear it's like I'm on dial up.
Anywho - ILLEGAL!!!!
maybe they're still on dial up...
That would explain it.
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're going to try to count the weak links in the UN, you best be prepared to make a bigger list.
Certainly in many cases the US has served to undermine, subvert, and generally derail the UN, but we are far from alone. As it stands today, the UN is a body of convenience, not a body of sovereign principle. And that's much bigger than "the US".
Specifically I was referring to the veto power of the US. It means that even if the UN was to bring some motion against the US for its actions obviously the US would veto it, hence the UN becomes essentially powerless in all areas which the US does not agree. So it pisses me off no end when the UN is characterised as 'powerless' because this reflects largely the US's obstructive perogative. You only have to look at the number of resolutions vetoed by the US (and supported by Australia, much to my disgust) regrding the Israel-Palestine conflict.
If you're going to try to count the weak links in the UN, you best be prepared to make a bigger list.
Certainly in many cases the US has served to undermine, subvert, and generally derail the UN, but we are far from alone. As it stands today, the UN is a body of convenience, not a body of sovereign principle. And that's much bigger than "the US".
Specifically I was referring to the veto power of the US. It means that even if the UN was to bring some motion against the US for its actions obviously the US would veto it, hence the UN becomes essentially powerless in all areas which the US does not agree. So it pisses me off no end when the UN is characterised as 'powerless' because this reflects largely the US's obstructive perogative. You only have to look at the number of resolutions vetoed by the US (and supported by Australia, much to my disgust) regrding the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Obviously this is not unique to the US, as the US is not the only nation with veto power. Regardless, the UN could bring forward such a resolution vis a vis the Iraq War even if the US would veto it. That would make a strong statement, at the least.
I already have, if one accepts the assumption that you are real. To be real is to occupy space and time and, as such, have a non-zero effect on objects around you as a direct results of one's existence. And since you responded to my post, I had some measurable affect on you.
Or, I could just use the word "floccinaucinihilipilification", which is a word that has both an objective meaning and is a word you've likely never heard, which largely demonstrates that I'm likely not a figment of your imagination. But even if I was, I could still be classified as "real".
I already have, if one accepts the assumption that you are real. To be real is to occupy space and time and, as such, have a non-zero effect on objects around you as a direct results of one's existence. And since you responded to my post, I had some measurable affect on you.
Or, I could just use the word "floccinaucinihilipilification", which is a word that has both an objective meaning and is a word you've likely never heard, which largely demonstrates that I'm likely not a figment of your imagination. But even if I was, I could still be classified as "real".
There's no way you're real.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
is the war illegal? yes
is the US solely to blame? no
just goes to show economic exploitation transcends political boundaries ... the US (as powerful as they seem) cannot do what they are doing in iraq without complicity from other nations ...
I already have, if one accepts the assumption that you are real. To be real is to occupy space and time and, as such, have a non-zero effect on objects around you as a direct results of one's existence. And since you responded to my post, I had some measurable affect on you.
Or, I could just use the word "floccinaucinihilipilification", which is a word that has both an objective meaning and is a word you've likely never heard, which largely demonstrates that I'm likely not a figment of your imagination. But even if I was, I could still be classified as "real".
could you use that word in a sentence please and spell it phonetically.
Thanks. Just curious, I don't even know how to say it.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
Comments
Then you're opining blindly for what reasons specifically???
slap...
if you actually looked you would have already saved yourself time whining about it....Mr no time..
your logic is frightening.
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 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)
(")_(")
LOL...no, I didn't watch it. And regardless of what it is, I'm quite sure I could argue with it.
If you want to argue, make your case. But please don't pretend it's not ironic to call someone chickenshit, anonymously, on a message board, whilst hiding behind the arguments of others in a youtube link.
whilst you are at Youtube watch those crazy dog videos where they say "I love you..."
....crazy dogs
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)
(")_(")
The UN is only as strong as its weakest link.....the US
get real.. If the sky is blue why bother writing an essay saying so because someone is too damn lazy and defiant (or whatever the strange case may be) to participate effectively. Yeesh...
And talking about saving time. My time is just as valuable as anyone else's thank you very much. If I can summarize it in a timely manner then so be it...
I can see all the threads you start...fucking zillions
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)
(")_(")
If you're going to try to count the weak links in the UN, you best be prepared to make a bigger list.
Certainly in many cases the US has served to undermine, subvert, and generally derail the UN, but we are far from alone. As it stands today, the UN is a body of convenience, not a body of sovereign principle. And that's much bigger than "the US".
I am real.
You have no obligation to write an essay, or even debate with me. I've laid out my terms: if you want to debate, make a case. If you don't wish to do so, that's cool, regardless of your reasoning.
Yes, so be it.
LOL...what is this about?
Prove it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Not blindly opining. I was specifically opining about someone who though FFG was afraid to debate. I did not opine about the video or the topic because I haven't watched the video.
Please don't hurt yourself.
Check again. I didn't say I didn't have time to watch your videos. I merely have no desire to click your links. I do admit I was intrigued enough last month to break my rule (the silly thread linking Columbine and Israel), but it only reinforced why I made my rule in the first place.
Thank you. I'm not entirely sure what logical fallacy you're trying to highlight, though.
Anywho - ILLEGAL!!!!
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Yet you have time to waste your time complain and fanning your farts... yes I can see that much.
You have no point except hot air, I can see that also.
your logic is stunning once again
edit: and out of all my threads you focus on the bad ones and hold them up like a shiny turd you pulled from your butt...congratulations.
sorry for not being flawlessly perfect and to your most gracious supreme liking..
what-fucking-ever..
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 they're still on dial up...
That would explain it.
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)
(")_(")
Specifically I was referring to the veto power of the US. It means that even if the UN was to bring some motion against the US for its actions obviously the US would veto it, hence the UN becomes essentially powerless in all areas which the US does not agree. So it pisses me off no end when the UN is characterised as 'powerless' because this reflects largely the US's obstructive perogative. You only have to look at the number of resolutions vetoed by the US (and supported by Australia, much to my disgust) regrding the Israel-Palestine conflict.
He/she said weakest
naděje umírá poslední
Obviously this is not unique to the US, as the US is not the only nation with veto power. Regardless, the UN could bring forward such a resolution vis a vis the Iraq War even if the US would veto it. That would make a strong statement, at the least.
I already have, if one accepts the assumption that you are real. To be real is to occupy space and time and, as such, have a non-zero effect on objects around you as a direct results of one's existence. And since you responded to my post, I had some measurable affect on you.
Or, I could just use the word "floccinaucinihilipilification", which is a word that has both an objective meaning and is a word you've likely never heard, which largely demonstrates that I'm likely not a figment of your imagination. But even if I was, I could still be classified as "real".
There's no way you're real.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
is the US solely to blame? no
just goes to show economic exploitation transcends political boundaries ... the US (as powerful as they seem) cannot do what they are doing in iraq without complicity from other nations ...
could you use that word in a sentence please and spell it phonetically.
Thanks. Just curious, I don't even know how to say it.
It's a noun that refers to the act of judging something to be completely worthless:
"When you didn't even bother to reply to that ridiculous argument, you made a floccinaucinihilipilification."
(flok-suh-naw-suh-nahy-hil-uh-pil-uh-fi-key-shuhn)
Thanks, I was having a rough time with that one. Of a trifiling value. I think I learn something new everyday