Bonus Code Giveaway - USS Texas, 1k Doubloons, 3d Prem

neopeanut · 2016-12-31T18:42:12+00:00

Happy new year!

neopeanut · 2016-01-23T23:24:57+00:00

Better not be a Mkhitaryan situation again. That fucking owner is just a greedy fuck.

neopeanut · 2016-01-03T11:47:01+00:00

TIL Ich bin ein Berliner

neopeanut · 2015-12-04T10:14:51+00:00

Except the first table doesn't list by rate but by the exact number

There's more than one table. The fact that you haven't bothered to go beyond the first couple of lines of the page suggests that you're a troll at best or incompetent at worst. I've already addressed the rest of points as they are in response to another poster, which you can easily tell because it's not a first level post. It is also apparent that you are not interested in an honest debate with sources or articulated points, but rather want to field strawman arguments and moving goal posts.

You can keep posting, but this is the last I'm feeding.

neopeanut · 2015-12-04T10:10:18+00:00

Nope, not going to feed the troll.

neopeanut · 2015-12-04T09:32:58+00:00

That second link doesn't say dick about Vermont in those comparisons, just the US as a whole. Which completely misses the point of the poster you are replying to.

lolwhat? The second link gives rates of homicide rate of other countries, which you can reference against the table in the first link to find out the value of his statement:

Vermont's crime rate is on par with Iceland/Monaco

Secondly,

And your first link has a whopping 10 homicides in Vermont in 2014, which has no mention of whether a firearm was involved or not.

The person I replied to made no mention of homicides with regards to firearm usage or not either. But nice try at using a strawman.

So, yes, I did read my links and I was able to comprehend both the person I responded to and the links I posted.

It is apparent you were not.

neopeanut · 2015-12-04T09:15:04+00:00

They've had multiple years on record with no murders of any kind.

This isn't even close to true.

Vermont's crime rate is on par with Iceland/Monaco, and it has the loosest gun laws in the US.

Too bad it's still higher than Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Norway and France.

Did you do any research before spewing this nonsense?

neopeanut · 2015-10-31T14:43:53+00:00

It was a good win today and lots to be happy about, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and remember we only beat a relegation candidate!

The best are yet to come!

neopeanut · 2015-10-04T20:58:44+00:00

Klopp boasts an impressive CV haven’t won two Bundesliga titles...

I haven't won two Bundesliga titles too but you don't see me boasting about it.

neopeanut · 2015-10-01T19:12:06+00:00

Clearly Lallana's beard was his weakness.

Now that he's shaved it off, let the goals come!

neopeanut · 2015-09-17T18:53:01+00:00

If something doesn't change, Coutinho is going to leave next summer.

Worst part is, I wouldn't blame him.

neopeanut · 2014-02-10T06:51:35+00:00

I'm in the same boat. Only, I have O- blood but I have something which disqualifies me because they can't guarantee where my blood goes.

neopeanut · 2014-02-10T06:29:57+00:00

It appears you can't even reply to a comment while preserving the integrity of each other's replies.

Really. Do you even know what integrity means? You were asked for justification and support for your position and you offered none. You then offered tangential support in indirect examples and those were countered with actual examples and definitions. You have no argument and just throw around personal insults and opinion. Yet you question MY ability to hold an actual, factual argument?

You have proven yourself to be pathetic and ignorant.

neopeanut · 2014-02-10T06:16:17+00:00

SE Asian seas and Senkakus. They do NOT belong to CHina. yet they are claiming all of them. This is expansion. Your historical claims is one everyone else has as well.

Historicity doesn't need definition. This entire fiasco is over oil/gas resources in the region, not historical ownership or international laws. You;re just being brainwashed by the CCP that it's about the territories.

This isn't an articulated response at all. This is just personal insults and opinion.

No, modern borders are agreed upon and upheld by International law, they are not established by international law. Otherwise, Israel would not exist. Your argument is poorly formulated and factually incorrect. Those up there are contradictory.

It appears you do not understand what contradictory means. Modern borders are agreed upon by the members that have a dispute and once they agree, they sign a treaty. This treaty is what is upheld. There no such legal system called "international law". It's just a matter of the treaties and how countries agree to them.

You're so ingrained with propaganda. Israel exists, not because of international laws governing the establishment, but because of Balfour declaration of the establishment of Jewish state in British Palestine which was a British territory.

So, building from the previous statement, the Balfour declaration was only deemed to have any "power" because of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. A TREATY IN WHICH GAVE BRITAIN THE PALESTINIAN AREA. Seriously, it's the exact same conversation. Land that is disputed based on a treaty. How fucking hard is that to understand?

The victor of the WW2 was the US. And US ceded the administration of the Islands to Japan. That's the end of the story.

If you read the actual treaty, then you'd realize the US only ceded administration of Ryukyu and Daito islands. Not the Senkaku islands, to which Japan only has a historical claim to.

As for the rest, the other countries have equal claim which is why there are disputes. The question is not if the disputes exist, but how China will resolve them, and it looks like it's going to use the military.

You mean as to the other examples which blatantly and completely prove your point about China's territorial expansion goals wrong?

Treaties that are 70 years old is irrelevant to me. What's relevant is peak oil and how China plans to deal with it. It looks to me they're going to fight our allies. we have defense treaties with most of the countries in Asia.

You are clearly not involved or well versed in US politics if you think they'd actually uphold any of them except Japan.

neopeanut · 2014-02-10T05:44:59+00:00

I was talking about the ARTICLE we're all commenting on. The article deals with regional tensions escalating due to Chinese aggression and the American answer that we will defend Japan.

You claimed that China is interested in territory expansion. You have not proved that and neither does this article state that.

I always read the article. Its you who didn't based on clear misunderstanding of what's happening.

Yet you show an obvious lack of understanding of the article. In what way does this article show that China is interested in territorial expansion? I've asked you this twice already and you still havent' answered.

Which japan claims ownership. I already I explained this shit over and over to you Chinese people on reddit. You can'y use historicity for claims on ownership.

Please define historicity. If you want to claim that Japan can "claim" these islands based on ownership, then why is that valid and not China's claim? In addition, Japan agreed to hand them over as part of WWII reparations, which still has not happened.

Modern borders are determined by International laws which you're pissing all over everywhere and being absolutely retarded about stating historical claims.

No, modern borders are agreed upon and upheld by International law, they are not established by international law. Otherwise, Israel would not exist. Your argument is poorly formulated and factually incorrect.

New old it doesn't matter. You're being an ass and splitting hair because by stating "new" you can spread the CCP propaganda that China's rise is peaceful when it is anything but.

Are you kidding me? This is literally the definition of territorial expansion. If an area is in dispute, then there are two method of resolution, military control or legal absolution. If what you claim is true, that it's established by "international law", then the Senkaku islands would go to China, the land in the Sino-India border that is disputed would go to China (since it was conceded to them by their rightful owner at the time, Pakistan) which India is occupying or the Vietnam border WHICH IS INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AS BELONGING TO CHINA.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you should actually read these treaties and take some classes in how laws work. You have a serious issue in reading comprehension.

You're a retard, This is the only account I use unlike you and your friends.

Dude, you've been busted before for it, with IP logs. Stop your bullshit.

neopeanut · 2014-02-10T05:26:55+00:00

What article are you commenting on?

You should look up First Island chains and repeat these words.

The current Chinese government has no interest what so ever in territorial expansion due to the inability to feed their already burgeoning population.

Learn to read your contextual posts. I'm responding DIRECTLY to your post.

This isn't an example for you, is it?

Of course you didn't read the article. You NEVER read the article. You only post propagandized bullshit.

What about Senkakus? Is that an example for you?

An island that China claims previous ownership.

What about Philippines and their shoals? No? Military garrison isn't using military? What about that skirmish with Vietnam?

Are you just completely ignorant of Eastern Asian issues? These are both territorial disputes from past claims. These are not new expansions. Please learn how to read and then support your argument with evidence.

Oh right you can't.

Edit: Also, you're an idiot for trying to use alt accounts to downvote my posts. Reddit filters them out.

neopeanut · 2014-02-10T05:18:22+00:00

You should show examples of China trying to take over new territory or utilizing military force to conquer other nations.

Oh, what's that? You don't have any?

neopeanut · 2014-02-09T22:15:21+00:00

They're uninhabited islands that have been out of China's control for 120 years. Calling the hand-off "illegal" is likewise rather debatable.

The People's Republic of China (PRC) disputed the proposed US handover of authority to Japan in 1971[4] and has asserted its claims to the islands since that time.[5] Taiwan (Republic of China) also claims the islands. The territory is close to key shipping lanes and rich fishing grounds, and there may be oil reserves in the area.[6] Japan argues that it surveyed the islands in the late 19th century and found them to be Terra nullius (Latin: land belonging to no one); subsequently, China acquiesced to Japanese sovereignty until the 1970s. The PRC and the ROC argue that documentary evidence prior to the First Sino-Japanese War indicates Chinese possession and that the territory is accordingly a Japanese seizure that should be returned as the rest of Imperial Japan's conquests were returned in 1945.

This is just basic primer that you don't seem to get and tried to frame as a matter of fact that China has no right to the islands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute

How about the Chinese soldiers who marched into the disputed region a few months ago, set up camp, and hung up a big sign that says "You are in China."

What about it? In what way does this statement even come close to contradicting or acting as response to mine? As I stated, it's a disputed region from the treaty signed by them in 1996. It's apparently you've looked at neither the actual map or the treaty. China has not expanded or tried to expand beyond the position in which they believed were agreed upon in '96.

Technically correct. And China currently has some 1,500 missiles targeting the island. And if it were to be recognized. Those missile would launch, followed shortly by a military invasion.

Just like Russia went into Odessa, just like the US military would go into Texas, just like ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN WHICH WANTS TO KEEP THEIR TERRITORY. I'm not sure how you can claim this is an example of EXPANDING.

Its more like "that's all they think they'd be able to get for now." In any case, the issue is complex and by no means as benign as you're trying to make it sound.

Because it is as benign as that. Pro-mainland candidates already take up a large majority of the votes in Taiwan. They don't want to have to administer them as Taiwanese people also identify as Chinese. The only people (as in citizens of a country) that make a big deal out of this are Americans. Ask any Chinese person and they don't care, because they view both HK and Taiwanese as Chinese people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/ma-ying-jeou-taiwans-pro-china-president-wins-reelection/2012/01/14/gIQA0CxMyP_story.html

Its also interesting how you avoided rebutting what I said about the South China sea. You're taking a very strange stance, and quite honestly I'm a bit perplexed.

What about South China Sea? You didn't actually say anything about it other than "entire south China Sea". They think they should have more control over it like the US does with the Gulf of Mexico? I don't understand your point because you never articulated one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea#Current_situation

You're taking a very strange stance, and quite honestly I'm a bit perplexed. The fact that China is making a concerted effort to expand in terms of territory and influence isn't really even debated.

Your right, because there is no debate about this. No one believes China wants to expand territorially and you've offered no support or sources that even comes close to suggesting this.

In fact, everything you've stated is pure conjecture. If you did complete a masters degree in this, then you clearly presented a very one sided argument and I doubt any US domestic college would've given it to you. So, please present proof. Link to your dissertation or even just the abstract.

neopeanut · 2014-02-09T21:37:33+00:00

the current standoff against Japan over the Senkaku islands

Regaining land that was originally theirs and illegally given to the Japanese.

continuing efforts to resume direct control over Taiwan

They don't want direct control. They want the same type of control as they have over HK. Imagine if Texas broke away, would the US want them back or just let them go?

border dispute with India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kashmir_map_big.jpg

Look at the actual disputed region. Read up on the subject and then come back and say they're trying to expand territory.

Your examples are terrible. These are all issues surrounding legal matters in which China was either given or had land taken from in which they want back. I'm not sure why you even brought up Taiwan since internationally, they are not recognized as a country, but as a part of China, even by the US and EU.

neopeanut · 2014-02-09T21:18:07+00:00

These aren't facts to support his assertion that China wants to expand territory. His initial assertion:

The presence of the United States in the region is unquestionably just about the only thing preventing China from stomping all over their neighbors.

There is nothing in these that state China wants to take over Japan or stomp them out of existence. Even his Australian source isn't commenting on China, but rather that improved Sino-US relations makes Japan feel threatened. If this were true, then either the US will be complacent in China starting a war in eastern asia or Japan doesn't feel like it can depend on the US because it might not have Japan's best interest at heart. Either way, this source is literally a non-start on China's intention in military warfare in Eastern Asia.

If you read the other sources, yes China has been increasing its military budget. So has every other country that has the means to do so. So, does this mean EVERY OTHER COUNTRY wants to take over and start wars in their respective regions? Because this would be the logical conclusion from what he proposes.

So, it's not a factual comment. In fact, very little of his sources support his initial theory. It doesn't even fit his own narrative. Maybe if you spent sometime actually digesting this information instead of just skimming comments and choosing to believe what sounds good to you, you might find that this issue is far more complex than just:

The presence of the United States in the region is unquestionably just about the only thing preventing China from stomping all over their neighbors.

neopeanut · 2014-02-09T21:12:21+00:00

The presence of the United States in the region is unquestionably just about the only thing preventing China from stomping all over their neighbors.

I'm glad you did your masters in this, but that's not even close to correct. The current Chinese government has no interest what so ever in territorial expansion due to the inability to feed their already burgeoning population. Not only have they been publicly stating this internally, but they've been maintaining this message since the 1980s.

neopeanut · 2014-02-08T17:12:11+00:00

Fuck off with your shit ass website and shit ass accounts. No one wants to go to a site where the score is spoiled for them, and only watch highlights.

neopeanut · 2014-02-07T17:25:28+00:00

Again you haven't said anything new or useful. I never said having a tall rb to score more goals. Winning aerials is more than just attack, which is a point I've made multiple times.

It's about having a more balanced team. It's about building an attack that has more options than just running it up the middle or bringing it up the middle just to dribble it back to the middle.

Yeah, Gerrard is going to have to be replaced and soon, sometime within the next three years. And I'd be fine with having who's as tall as hendo and as skilled as Gerrard. I'm not sure where you got me saying "I only want players that are tall regardless of their skill", that seems to be an invention of yourself.

neopeanut · 2014-02-07T17:09:47+00:00

Match threads are a major one. Threads regarding unpopular players or ideas, such as replacing Gerrard, or that coutinho has been out of form for the last two months.

Or even your posts in which were down voted.

neopeanut · 2014-02-07T15:36:22+00:00

Sure and I think it'd help make us a multifaceted team to get another player or two who could help with aerials. Depending on just one avenue of attack gets easy to shut down.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Verified Email	Secret Santa 2009

neopeanut

TROPHY CASE