he still is a douche...

just like a democrat...cut down the republican and make him look stupid publicly without any good cause. that's the kind of government i want to live under for sure.

i have long been a republican on this board and have actually enjoyed having e-arguments with many of you over various issues. that again was the intent of my 'kerry is a bitch' thread.

too bad seeking has no confidence in his candidate or his constituents and feels closing conversation is the best way to ensue a win...

lame-o

considering we're all deviants and vandals (some more than others) what's the point?

*(the point of fighting with the mods that is)

http://www.darwinfoundation.org/terrest/images/5110_two-penguins.jpg'>

"Oh yes oh yes"

if you don't like kerry, fine.

but why make it something personal?

aren't you the one on her calling him a "douche" ?

that's not the way for YOU to win an argument either.

hahaha, this is a rich kid who gave it up to go to vietnam after all.

our current prez has given a million reasons to publicly destroy him.

he lied to the country to get support for premeptive war.

republican or democrat, dubya destroyed america's reputation in the eye's of the world, and as much as people don't want to admit it, the world's opinion does matter.

he reversed decades of international policy and unity by withdrawing from treaty after treaty.

i don't care anymore about arguing the fine points of liberalism v conservativism

dubya is ruining america

have fun with the patriot act

you're kidding right?

i will debate you heads up on any topic you want, and make you (and your candidate) look like this biggest steaming piles of hypocritical shit in the history of modern politics.

seeks/that was me calling you out, in case you were too blinded by your own ignorance to notice.

let's go then...just to point out from the get-go, i don't deal with media shit as you have four years of that action to my two months. i want real dirt.

to get it started, every treaty we've withdrawn from has had a legit reason. first off, nato...fuck that action. for example, if you had an agreement with 19 of your closest friends that if any one of the 19 of you got your ass beat on the street, the other 18 were OBLIGATED to retaliate. and then, you did get your ass beat and your 18 bitch ass friends decided that you didn't get your ass beat bad enough for them to put their ass on the line. what would you say? i know what i would, and bush said just that , 'fuck you, i'll handle this shit myself then!'

*ding ding*

i'm waiting.

This will soon turn into one of my favorite threads.

That is, if freeze can muster the guster.

oh, freeze has the guster...i'm just waiting on seeks to quit surfing the web to dig up his beef...

anyone else is welcome to join in...

oh shit, wait, i forgot, he's got to cross-check all the shit he was going to talk with the lies of michael mooore...

This will be fantastic.

Let's try to avoid the usual thoroughly unwinnable gangbang and see how this kid measures up to seeking alone. You know, after all, he'll make a great trial-lawyer someday...

This guy is kidding right?

Only on one occasion...

...in the history of this nation of ours has a president withdrawn from a treaty without the approval of Congress.

07/26/2001 - Updated 09:00 PM ET

Issues that trouble White House

International treaties that the Bush administration has withdrawn from or has concerns about:

Anti-Ballistic Missile (1972): The administration says the ABM Treaty between the United States and Soviet Union should be scrapped because it bars development of national missile defenses.

START II (1993): The U.S.-Russian accord requires each side to reduce strategic nuclear weapons from 6,000 to a range of 3,000-3,500 by 2007. The Senate has ratified the treaty, but the Russian Duma has conditioned ratification on U.S. Senate approval of changes in START II and the ABM Treaty. President Bush is not seeking to ratify those changes. He wants to end, not amend, the ABM Treaty. He has launched new talks with Russia on reducing nuclear arsenals.

Comprehensive Test Ban (1996): The treaty would ban all nuclear test explosions, but the administration says it would limit U.S. research. White House officials have held up submission of the treaty to the Senate, which refused to ratify it in 1999.

Kyoto Protocol (1997): Aimed at combating global warming, it is backed by 178 nations. Bush has rejected it on grounds that it would harm the U.S. economy and exempt developing nations. Bush has promised to offer alternatives for dealing with the problem.

Biological weapons (1995): The administration abandoned a United Nations draft accord that sets out enforcement mechanisms for the treaty, which would limit germ warfare. U.S. negotiators say the approach threatens industry and national security.

Land Mine Ban (1997): The administration is expected to concur with the Clinton administration's rejection of the treaty, which calls for the destruction of anti-personnel land mines.

International Criminal Court (1997): The treaty would create the first permanent international tribunal to prosecute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. The administration says the accord could infringe on U.S. sovereignty and put U.S. troops at risk. Bush has no plans to seek Senate ratification.

Small Arms Control (2001): The administration agreed last Saturday to a U.N. pact to stem the illegal flow of small arms. However, U.S. officials blocked two key provisions: regulation of civilian ownership of military weapons and restrictions on trade to rebel movements.

Wham BAM Slammer...

Originally posted by freeze

to get it started, every treaty we've withdrawn from has had a legit reason.

KYOTO !!!

If you can find a legit reason to sacrifice the enviroment to protect big business...

Originally posted by freeze

to get it started, every treaty we've withdrawn from has had a legit reason. first off, nato...fuck that action. for example, if you had an agreement with 19 of your closest friends that if any one of the 19 of you got your ass beat on the street, the other 18 were OBLIGATED to retaliate. and then, you did get your ass beat and your 18 bitch ass friends decided that you didn't get your ass beat bad enough for them to put their ass on the line. what would you say? i know what i would, and bush said just that , 'fuck you, i'll handle this shit myself then!'

 

*ding ding*

first of all, if 18 of my 19 friends tell me i need to sit down and shut up otherwise i'm gonna get my ass beat, and i dont, then i'm on my fucking own. i've got my friends back, but when you get yourself in over your head even after i tell you to chill, i'm not gonna risk my ass because you were a fucking retard. NATO had our back in afghanistan because it was justified. they did not have our back in iraq, because AS HAS BEEN PROVEN, it was a crock of shit. the fact that we didnt bother to listen to our '18' friends all telling us we were wrong, makes us egotistical, self centered, and is ten times more of a 'fuck you' than them saying 'wait a second, lets figure this out rationally'. by your logic, if germany decided they wanted to invade israel, we have an OBLIGATION to have their back, right?!

bulllllllssshiiiiiitttttttttttt.

(*ding ding*)

seeks: 1

over his head kid: 0

you're not wrong on kyoto - yes it does protect big business...which protects big money...which keeps most of our broke asses in jobs and not eating flour paste for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. it's all give and take playboy. i'm not going to lie, i pretty much don't give a shit about anything that exists now after i'm long gone. i want MY ASS taken care of. yes, very selfish, animalistic, whatever, but it's realistic. besides, i want to be just as rich as the next guy, and i believe i'll get there someday, and fuck yes i want my money protected. fuck this world-socialist shit...

and i guess you got me on the fact that bush has yet to come through on providing alternative options on kyoto, but the reasons for our withdrawl were legit.

I want Kerry to win, but mark my words - Bush is going to have another 4 years.

seeks, you're fucking wrong my man...nato is one of the reasons we weren't in afghanistan from the get-go...we were waiting on their bitch asses to back us. and then (i may be wrong) never backed us in any middle eastern battle. they just told us 9/11 wasn't a military strike and therefore declared they had no obligation to defend our retalition.

iraq is another story, but you're wrong on afghanistan playboy.

over his head kid evens the score...

Originally posted by freeze

you're not wrong on kyoto - yes it does protect big business...which protects big money...which keeps most of our broke asses in jobs and not eating flour paste for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. it's all give and take playboy. i'm not going to lie, i pretty much don't give a shit about anything that exists now after i'm long gone. i want MY ASS taken care of. yes, very selfish, animalistic, whatever, but it's realistic. besides, i want to be just as rich as the next guy, and i believe i'll get there someday, and fuck yes i want my money protected. fuck this world-socialist shit...

you're so dumb it's giving me a headache. 'big business' comprises less than 1% of the population, but controls 95% of the wealth. how exactly is that keeping me from eating flour paste?! over the last 4 years the average persons income rose (i believe3%) big business's profit margin rose something like 65%. tell me exacccccctly how thats working out? meanwhile the globalization of companies is sending our manufacturing jobs to china, mexico, taiwan, india, indonesia, etc, there by putting all of those americans OUT OF WORK, there by forcing them to 'eat flour paste'. that is sure as shit not helping you to get rich. infact, all it's doing is further insuring that you will NEVER be rich. it's well known that the only way to really make money, is to own the business, not work hourly. however in our present economy, with everything being controlled by large corporations (walmart, etc) there is no chance for small businesses to develop, there by ensuring that we are at their mercy forever, being forced to take whatever measly scraps they give us, because it's the choice of that or nothing.

during the depression, fruit pickers wages were slashed year after year, until they were making less than it took to feed their families, yet the fruit companies were making higher and higher profits. do the fucking math mr. smart guy trial lawyer. speaking of which, you want to be a 'trial lawyer', but your arguing the wrong fucking side. prosecutors dont make the money, defense attorneys do. defense attorneys sue large corporations for multi million dollar suits becase they serve their coffee too hot. the same coffee you're trying to tell me is better served when boiling.

ding, fucking ding son.

and one more thing on your response to my nato observation...imagine of those 18 friends were the smallest, skinniest, most pussified pieces of shit that you knew, and they still called you out...hell yes you're going to abandon that treaty.

Originally posted by freeze

but the reasons for our withdrawl were legit.

I disagree.

It was a clear case of the rich protecting the rich.

I know some people can imagine a world after we're gone,

but look at the changes we've made in one lifetime.

The industrial age was one a the blackest spots on our timeline

and now we have the responsibility to clean up our mess.

Sure it sounds like hippy bullshit to some so I'l break it down in therms of finance.

When the resources are gone, we are all broke.

Dont think that it can happen in our lifetime.

uh, we were in afghanistan since the seventies fool, getting osama to win the cold war for us.

oh fuck it.

seeking can have you for breakfast.

"The Allies - for the first time in NATO's history - invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack against one or more NATO member country will be considered an attack against all."

try harder next time

Originally posted by freeze

and one more thing on your response to my nato observation...imagine of those 18 friends were the smallest, skinniest, most pussified pieces of shit that you knew, and they still called you out...hell yes you're going to abandon that treaty.

motherfucker, maybe you didnt get the memo that contained our 'coallition of the willing'. half the countries didnt have fucking armies!!!

germany, france, poland, greece, italy, spain? these are NOT the 'skinniest most pussified pieces of shit' we know.

i meant try harder to win, not lose

ha! you just called me dumb and son in the same post. seriously playboy. first off, in case you were unaware, there are two types of trial lawyers...those that defend the accused and those that prosecute them. believe i know that that money lies in the private sector (defense) and that's where i'm headed.

this is going to be a short rebuttal as it is time for my lunch break, but there will be more to come no doubt...for you to bash the rich for protecting themselves and their wealth is simply you limiting yourself my man. honestly, could you say that if you were half as wealthy as the cats in question you'd really be as worldly as you're claiming in your arguments? you're the most noble fellow i've ever conversed with if you can answer yes. don't get me wrong, i still want what's best for the whole, but i'm coming first...i don't think there's a single one of us out there that can argue against that. bitching about the rich getting richer is fucking played. all that's happening is the smart are getting smarter and the dumb are taking less and less in handouts while doing less and less to fend for themselves...point blank.

germany, france, poland, greece, italy, spain? these are NOT the 'skinniest most pussified pieces of shit' we know.

i meant try harder to win, not lose [/b]

and yeah, pretty much they are...

wait, i thought you were supposed to be arguing against kerry, what happened to that?

what is good for the group, is always good for the individual, what is good for the individual is never good for the group.

that idea won a nobel prize.

apparently you're smarter than the greatest minds of our times though.

who knew?!

i'm not arguing 'against' the rich, i'm proving that your arguments are full of shit.

"could you say that if you were half as wealthy as the cats in question you'd really be as worldly as you're claiming in your arguments? you're the most noble fellow i've ever conversed with if you can answer yes."

ever heard of george soros? look him up.

i too have to go to lunch in a minute, so this will have to be put on hold.

ps, by flat out making things up, my man, you are not helping things any, playboy. maybe it works with the folks you hang out with, my man, but i (and those laughing along at home) don't fall for it.

Originally posted by freeze

originally posted by seeking germany, france, poland, greece, italy, spain? these are NOT the 'skinniest most pussified pieces of shit' we know.

i meant try harder to win, not lose

 

and yeah, pretty much they are... [/b]

here's your 'coalition' of the willing. some damn heavy hitters you got.

coalition of the useless

take the us and uk off that list, and i'll put germany and france up against the whole team.

lunch time.

Unnamed countries which may be on the expanded list of the coalition include:

 

Greece - U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. 6th Fleet and supports Navy and Air Force intelligence-gathering planes. Allowing use of airspace under NATO and bilateral defence agreements, but will not send troops.

No love for bush, no love for your war.