Jerusalem: UN resolution rejects Trump's declaration

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Which is what I'd call a whataboutism. Maybe it's worth to think about the potential harm of moving an embassy instead?

Fighting an imagined whataboutism with a real whataboutism. Classy

Looks like you aren't understanding the term whataboutism. Don't worry, you'll catch up

An ironic comment, given that the member I was responding to said quite literally "what about...." in their comments. But hey, if it makes you feel good to try and get pissy with members who weren't even speaking to you, by all means. Judging by your posts, you need the attention

And I'm the one getting pissy, lol

At least you're self aware enough to recognize it

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


You said the 'current administration', same thing.

Wow. An administration is a person, not a government. My mistake, got it now. But you were anyway.

I wish we did much more with that finger. Believe me.

I'm not at all surprised.

Oh, and I hate to break it to you, Jews and Arabs were and still are killing each other over there regardless of where Israel decides to set up its capital and I have a feeling they still would even if Israel moved its capital to Mars.

That's alright then isn't it.

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes honestly. And the term is "couldn't give a flying rats ass" couldn't give, as in don't care, rather than could give, as in care a great deal. You ALWAYS get that wrong (as a country, not just you).

What about your grammar? What about understanding what phrases mean before trying to use them1?

Aaaargh, now I'm doing it.

Always a great "argument" when one spends the majority of their time whining about the syntax of the other side rather than attacking their points.

Whoosh!


DBC gave the best answer to that. Even felt obliged to star it, dammit.

You did a thing! Yay!

a reply to: gortex
America first. Phuck the leech nations.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes honestly. And the term is "couldn't give a flying rats ass" couldn't give, as in don't care, rather than could give, as in care a great deal. You ALWAYS get that wrong (as a country, not just you).

What about your grammar? What about understanding what phrases mean before trying to use them1?

Aaaargh, now I'm doing it.

Always a great "argument" when one spends the majority of their time whining about the syntax of the other side rather than attacking their points.

Whoosh!


DBC gave the best answer to that. Even felt obliged to star it, dammit.

You did a thing! Yay!

Try it, you may like it.

(Just quickly, while I'm here, what's the story with the 'gayest-looking-cop-ever' pic on the avatar? I admit I've been wondering a while, but can't figure if it's carrying some sort of message)

a reply to: waynos

That's officer Dangle, don't dis officer Dangle.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: waynos

That's officer Dangle, don't dis officer Dangle.

Googled Officer Dangle, thanks We don't have that show so I had no idea

a reply to: waynos

Find it and watch it, funny show.

If you do get it there is an episode where a British officer was riding along and it was funny as hell.

a reply to: waynos

Try it, you may like it.

I do it so often it's not nearly the accomplishment it seems to be for you

(Just quickly, while I'm here, what's the story with the 'gayest-looking-cop-ever' pic on the avatar? I admit I've been wondering a while, but can't figure if it's carrying some sort of message)

Probably that he is the gayest TV cop ever?

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: waynos

Find it and watch it, funny show.

If you do get it there is an episode where a British officer was riding along and it was funny as hell.

Cheers, I will.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: gortex
America first. Phuck the leech nations.

Keep your Gold there are other "competing" nations who will gladly take up your role on the world stage , as you become more insular your influence diminishes , you'll be great in your eyes at least but to other nations your voice will carry less weight , this isn't making America great.

originally posted by: gortex

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: gortex
America first. Phuck the leech nations.

Keep your Gold there are other "competing" nations who will gladly take up your role on the world stage , as you become more insular your influence diminishes , you'll be great in your eyes at least but to other nations your voice will carry less weight , this isn't making America great.

So, you're advocating for us to BE the world leaders?

Nah, let the "competing" nations have at it.

I'd rather have the isolation thanks.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: gortex


Does this also mean they think the Congress' decision 20 years ago is null and void? If it weren't for this there would be another excuse for the United Nations to get pissy about us. Eff them, corrupt bunch of tools that they are.

Actually thats what the the whole world thought about "US": 'Eff them, corrupt bunch of tools that they are'.

Nikki Haleys comments about America,"Taking Names" was priceless. Yours was pre-dic-table.

a reply to: gortex

UN still exists? Could an entity be any less worthless.

a reply to: gortex

Good luck living in a China dominated world. Enjoy.

a reply to: gortex

one day....china and friends will decide to take your freedom and the US will say we told you so.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: gortex

UN still exists? Could an entity be any less worthless.

To Empires, yes.

Not that the UN hasn't been hijacked almost since it was formed. But it was formed to give each nation a vote to prevent Empires from trying to take over the world.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
right? State ownership of EVERYTHING! I wonder if they realize that even houses of worship, regardless of denomination are also controlled and regulated heavily by the state there.


US leadership stands for personal liberty and private ownership. Chinese stands for state ownership, and heavy regulation of your personal life. Wonder how the Europeans will even be able to fight it, what with such anti-self defense societies that may as well leave them with their arms cut off?


I know European states will be begging for American leadership after a decade of Communist hegemony between China and Russia. I guess 40 years of partition just was not that bad, now they want more?

a reply to: waynos

well last i heard Israel was not operating death camps with gas chambers and mass crematory ovens like the germans did during the war. am i saying Israel hasn't done dirty crap to Palestinians sure it has. has it been a good neighbor not so much.
but rest of the world needs to understand that only Israel determines its capitol which it did 37 years ago . the us by deciding to move its embassy is a smart move in that we don't have to worry so much our diplomats crossing from tel aviv to Jerusalem to do there business.

at end of second world war the allies should have invited the European Jews who wanted to leave Germany to come to our lands instead they were dropped off in British Palestine and ran wild and created a new country.
the un has many member countries that do despicable deeds that un turns a blind eye too if they want to get riled up here are somethings worthy of fighting.

1. slavery
2 . genocide/ethnic cleansing
3. child brides
4. manufacture/export of illicit drugs
5 etc.

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Right as they also froth at the mouth to send in Militant blue helmets to American streets to clear them of guns.

even the thought of that is laughable. which countries from the un are going to fund that? they dont ever do a damn thing without the US footing the vast majority of costs and manpower.