you put any us marine against any british marine. seriously try it.
This is merely a conception, and it is a useless point as all humans differentiate from eachother. Sure you can say that any one British Marine could handle any one American Marine, however do not suffer from the misconception of thinking that all British Marines could handle any American Marine. As any Marine ( despite nationality ) could defeat any other marine in combat.
and yes i have a few friends in the marines who all say that its hilarious how many americans it takes to get a ship running
Once again this is merely a conception, since you are also telling me that your friends are explicating to you how many Americans it takes your friends are obviously biased. Just about any American in the military will tell you that British Soldiers are pussies and can't get anything done, then you go over to England and every British Soldier will tell you that American Soldiers are pussies and can't get anything done.
Judging by your description of the debate I would say finding the answer is a bit paradoxical.
However a company normally wants their name visible at all times, as to promote. So if one side has the company name on it chances are that is the correct side.
I do think that no matter how they got their degree, they should work through a certain internship period before "graduating" as full medical personnel, to ensure they have adequate practical experience
They do, every person getting into the medical field via an online course must have hands on practice and pass hands on physcal tests.
The United States is the number one millitary power in the world.
the uk military would beat you into the ground with regards to discipline
They would beat us down in discipline? So is your point that America would beat the UK down physically?
i mean it takes twice as many amercan marines to operate a ship half as big
Got anything to prove that?
ok well the fact that you want to take this agruement seriously is a joke in itself,
I addressed your post was a joke, I made that fairly obvious. Once again I found your joke to be idiotic and childish, so I chose to dispute it.
seriously you can not give any evidential proof as to one country being better than another and to be honest it woul be racist to try
I addressed that in my comment on the U.S.A.'s side of the debate, where I posted that you cannot determine whether or not one country is better than another in a general sense.
now dont insult me by saying that i am an adolesent, if you want to argue a genuine topic, well bring it on.
Well as far as I'm concerned that is on your table to argue in a debate that is worth your attention span, I have nothing to prove and what I had to prove I stated as crystally as possible.
now if you'll excuse me i need to get back to my afternoon tea with scones and crumpets
See now that was funny.
Ok you really need to get a life outside of this website
I spend roughly 10 minutes a day on this website at the maximum, just post a few of my thoughts and get on with my day.
you clearly take life far too seriously.
Oh I have a sense of humor, it just appeals to people who have gotten past elementary school.
First of all i do not joke all of the time
All of the posts I have seen you make are foolish within themselves.
Now while you may argue that his argument for the grammatical errors is over aggressive
I was disputing him for calling me over aggressive, and was saying you appear to be a fool ;)
he has a valid point and in your own words "do you have a point in disputing it."
I disputed your argument due to the way it was set up. Your point was to make fun of Americans whom you stereotypically put us as obese and unable to even click the correct side. Your joke was distasteful and overly child like, it was also the 4th or 5th argument I had seen you make that was overly childlike in nature, and had quite frankly gotten annoyed at seeing them.
Finally how dare you call me a fool,
Act as a fool be called a fool, being a bit antithetic there Jeremy.
this has no point in an argument and you in yourself have no point in which to dispute the argument.
My point in disputing your argument was that it was distasteful in my opinion, and factually extremely childlike.
I do not expect a reply from this and in future i hope that you will learn to try to use valid arguments
Hahaha.
also i hope that in future you do learn to distinguish when a person is making a joke.
Oh I could tell you were making a joke, refer to my above comments.
If you get a degree online, you don't get the experience you do when you actually go to college, the hand-on-hand stuff. You can read all you want about drawing a blood sample, but once you go to do it, it's more than just a picture on a screen.
To pass the course you still have to pass the hands on portions of the exams. If I want to become an EMS I would have to go out and do some test runs, pass all the physical tests ( I.E. stabilizing someone ), and pass the written tests.
Yes, my point was that he was joking.
One who jokes all the time is within himself a fool, defending a fool for no other reason than to point out that the person is a fool seems a tad bit worthless.
As for grammatical errors, whilst being undesirable, they do not render an argument invalid.
Did I say grammatical errors make an argument invalid? I was merely building a case for which I made what seemed, in your eyes, to be an overly aggressive dispute of his initial post.
my point was
What is your point in disputing me? This debate is on whether or not England is better than the United States and vice-versa, you are pulling away from the debate at hand to defend a fool on whether or not I was harsh on my response to his post. In which case you trying to tell me this was off topic within itself.
So once again, do you have a point in disputing me?
It really depends on what grade the students are in, as well as the level of difficulty the course in itself is.
You could group up a massive amount of AP students and not have a problem with the class, however you drop down to the level of Liberal Arts and the level of devotion to the course begins to drop like a rock. Where students are all on the drop out course and really care nothing about anything other than whose party was the sickest the previous weekend, and or whose will be the sickest this coming weekend.
I firmly believe that modernity is not only getting dressed up in party clothes, wearing mini skirts and slim leggings..but modernity in it's true sense means advancing with time but holding on to ones cultures and traditions or roots at the same time
Modernity can have a plethora of different meanings depending on what context it is used.
In its entirety it means to be modern or something modern.
So dressing modern could simply mean wearing Michael Jordan brand shoes, not necessarily mini skirts.
Since a student does not need any special training to wear party clothes or miniskirts, therefore what does need training is the implementation of traditions.
I feel as though you ignore your own question, as you do not even address teachers until the bottom half of your affirmative constructive statement.
a teacher himself or herself should have it in them in the first place.
What modernity? For the most part everyone has modernity within them, as everyone had to grow up. Therefore they have been subjected to the culture wherever they reside, I use culture as that seems to be your definition of modernity.
As an institution is not just about the academics
It damn well sure be, it should have hardly anything to do with educating students on how to properly dress whilst at school. This idea in itself is completely off topic to your own debate question.
it should also contribute to the deepening of one's roots(the student's)
Do you remember what we are supposed to be discussing? We are supposed to be discussing whether or not high school teachers should have a strict dress code.
Also sexual appeal from a teacher can be quite distracting for a student and also inappropriate and unexpected
A teacher should not need a strict dress code in high school as an adult any teacher should understand the basic concept of dressing appropriately for work, in which case all that should be needed is a suggestion of what to wear.
Thus i think teachers in school should have a strict dress code.
You posted a paragraph, and you only truly addressed your own question in one sentence of it.
All in all your whole post was off topic and irrelevant to your own question.
I think he lacks the capability of making a serious post, honestly after seeing most of his posts on other debates I have come to the conclusion that he does not have the mental capacity to make an argument that has less than five grammatical errors.
Did you have an argument for what I posted? Otherwise the notification for a dispute was rather worthless.
Every single one of that guy's posts are ridiculously childish, this website to him is quite frankly a joke.
That or he is an adolescent, in which case he is incapable of making a decent argument for any subject he chooses to debate on.
So I am not going to chill the fuck out, because trust me I am about as chill as one can be.
Oh man, that sure was a funny comment you made!
Is that the type of response you are looking for? You might have gotten a response that may have held a slight chuckle in it had you used the right words in half of your idiotic retort to the question being asked of you.
Jeremy Fargus, you are a disgrace to trolls and online comics all over the world.
i can picture it now, (in between big macs)"cummon mouse move!, ah screw it ill just click england. omnomnom." (continues eating)
So is this you proving how England is better?
lol fest
In saying that I now realize you are either a preteen, or are suffering from being in the mental state of one.
on a serious note, the uk kicks ass.
How so? Fish n' chips have gotten to you my friend, go have yourself a scone and mock the biggest power in the world. However do these two actions separately, as I wouldn't want to see you hurt yourself trying to multi-task.
Next time you create a two sided debate, I suggest you choose the option of making it a two sided debate opposed to a perspective debate.
Because now, just to be that guy I am going to choose something that is completely different from both suggested answers above.
I will instead go with:
A tricycle, as it is an effective mean of transportation. It is also very well balanced with excellent handling capabilities, this mode of transportation can host a wide range of ages as the three wheel design will allow for; adults, children, and even elderly people to operate the machine with relative ease!
What is going to happen when scientists pin point a certain gene to homosexuality?
It is only a matter of time before the literal trigger for homosexuality is discovered, and then what? Will all these religious people simply accept it? More than likely they will merely shun the research, cover their ears, and scream: ignorance is bliss!
There is no point in trying to argue with JesusFreak, you have to argue with someone who has not been swallowed up by any form of religion. Who associates himself with a religion but is not obsessed. One who when questioned with the very same questions you pose begins to actually question his own beliefs, and from their you as an intellectual can chip away at the average person's religious bubble until it pops.
It is just sad how the people who have become swallowed up by their religion don't even realize what they are doing to society. JesusFreak is one of those people who holds up signs that have all kinds of horrendous slander written upon them, degrading different people who oppose their religious views.
Religion has been the cause of more death than anything else in the world to date; and that my friend sickens me.
Would you not give him any credit for anything he has done so far? Or are you against him 100%?
Do you feel like his health care bill was a mistake?
Would you not also say that he entered the presidency in an extremely rough time?
In my opinion I say we give him the next four, he is not nearly as bad as the eight years that preceded him. I feel like he is trying to implement change, and do what he set out to do in the beginning of his campaign.
I really see no president that is going to do a better job ( at least that has a chance of getting elected ) than Obama, unless you had someone in mind that had a hope of winning?
Your average teenager... mistake on your part.
I'll give that one to you, as I know this is factual from taking different psychology courses. Which is an excellent point. However we are talking about college students, where there is a major difference between those who come to party and those who come to word diligently. Procrastinators normally do not fall under the latter category.
Did you know that 39% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
Ah a funny man.
Check it out.
But you are avoiding my other points, that's not fair ;l
You wouldn't happen to be a jackass would you?
No, just your average high school student.
My thought process is not flawed, it just did not contain any good sources of information and was a reply to your question off the top of my head.
Well I would like to hear this good information.
I can get more in depth if you want...
After you sir.
Speeding up the process is usually not a good thing when it comes to schooling, at least from my experience.
Well that is an interesting claim. However anyone from the medical field must pass all tests in order to become anything in the medical field. These tests include ones where a professor is present and evaluating ( the important tests ), so if a student happened to cheat on all of his/her tests taken within the comfort of their home will more than likely fall into the less than 1/8th percentage of students who drop out or fail online courses.
Procrastination to the point of failure is a sign of one who is weak of mind.
No the idea is an atrocious one.
Duly noted.
The idea of knowing my nurse drawing my blood actually graduated by taking a speedy course isn't a very comforting idea.
Though that might be the idea running through your head it is a misconception.
As all nurses, along with any field within the medical sphere, must pass all tests both taken online and physically ( hands on ) to pass the course and become certified.
Online just helps speed up the process. Basically allowing any people who are diligent workers to take and finish their course in a faster time than in a regular class room setting.
Yes it is.
Having any sort of degree obtainable through online course work allows for the student to do a lot more with their life during the time that they are enrolled in a virtual school.
Just because it is medical online school doesn't mean it changes the quality of work involved with obtaining the degree.
Online courses that involve medical fields are all to the extremes of different.
We'll take getting a degree in being a Nurse Practitioner for instance. Though all the course work is taken online, meeting of a teacher, and performing hands on work for a final and for different labs throughout the course are a requirement.
Now that your heart rate has settled, knowing your nurse didn't only take a crash course in nursing online...
Taking online courses in different medical fields leaves students with a lot of time to spare. Which leads me to job opportunities. With a lot of time to spare students then get the opportunities to hold steady paying jobs. Ones where the student can start paying off any debts, or simply saving up.
On the area of saving up: students who decide to take online courses side skirt all those extraneous bills such as; books, living, and transportation. As we know most students within the collegian sphere are normally not to heavily set with a nice cash flow.
PS3 gets a yellow light, it just doesn't happen to be red...
You apparently got unlucky, as the RROD is really a rare defect in the system. Normally caused by someone leaving it on for days upon days until the system over heats itself into a frenzy.
So you got a RROD, and that is it? Cut the Microsoft line? Well your call, but I'm going to stick to Halo: Reach.
muahaha mw2, mgs and ncharted pwns halo and gears of war
Too bad mw2 isn't an exclusive game re-re.
Gears of war is just a bloody gory game, not one of my favorites.
But I will be dammed if I let you talk about Halo in any way other than an affirmative! The Halo series has been one of the best series of games ever introduced to the gaming sphere. The game has always had amazing graphics for the years in which they were introduced, as well as being awesomely interactive, and holding onto a very steady and intriguing story line.
Don't you dare talk about my Halo.
You posted on the wrong side.
You are an incoherent fool.
And opinion on games is really an irrelevant factor in whether or not a system is better than the other. Who knows? Your favorite game might happen to be Bejeweled Extreme! in which case I wouldn't take your opinion anywhere other than the edge of a cliff.
I remember one time... when my ps3 fell over while i was plaing a game.... and the game disc was fine...
What the hell does this have to do with anything at all?
I have had my X-Box fall over with a game in and it was perfectly fine as well...
So where is your point exactly?
ive had xbox 360 and you need to pay alot of crap and its not worth it
Like what? Games ?
ring of doom
Doesn't exist anymore, and even when it did it was an extremely rare occurrence that Microsoft normally handled if you sent your system in.
that was so bad when i found out microsoft wants you to get a new 360
Incoherent.
they are bullies
I don't think I get where you are going with this, if you are going to point a finger at Microsoft you better get your hands ready; because you are going to have to do a whole lot of finger pointing at corporations that are bullies... your amazing Sony as well.
Nice points there.
I can see now why you have 3 up votes on your post...
Your response to the list of games the person above posted was that :ALL THOS ARE SUCKISH FAG GAMES.
Thanks, duly noted.
Keep in mind that opinions seems to clash with fact in your mind. You might think that some of the best first person shooter games are faggish, this is probably due to you playing Barbie's Mansion or something of the sort. As I do not see what makes Halo 2 ( given that you posted this after Reach came out you have to judge it as if it is Reach ... ) a bad game. It won a ton of awards and was one of the highest played online games to date. That and the graphics for the time in which it came out were indefinitely awesome.
Thanks again for your input, and you really deserve the attention of awarded points for a completely incoherent, idiotic, and childish post, however who knows? You could be that kid on the other side of the mike that hasn't hit puberty yet... at which case there really is no point in even talking to you.
Ja nemam iskustva s web stranice na kojoj ste govorili. Međutim, ne mogu naći da je većina web stranice postaju sve više i više pojednostavljeno. To je uglavnom za starije generacije, kao i većina rođena poslije 90-tih su vrlo sposoban za rukovanje računalima osnovna svojstva, stvaranje web stranice kolač hoda.
Web stranice kao što je Nike zapravo unajmiti psihologa kako bi njihove web stranice jednostavan za korištenje, što je za veći dio vjerujem da napraviti odličan posao. I baš kao savjet: većina ljudi na ovim stranicama ne govori hrvatski, stoga nemojte očekivati da je velika odgovor.
Being Racist, because it's evil. Hating fags is pure and patriotic.
So when scientists do locate the gene that alters the human orientation, I wonder if you will retract that statement or continue on being an idiotic homophobic extremist.
Are you familiar with the saying ignorance is bliss?
Racist. They tend to be gay...
Nothing wrong with being a homophobe.
You are saying that racists tend to be gay? A ludicrous statement.
There is something wrong with being a homophobic, it is having a phobia towards a type of person. A person whom cannot help who they are, but are attacked both verbally and physically due to their orientation.
To the debate question at hand: both due nothing to help the human race, and are nothing but detrimental. I would say both are equally in a state of worthlessness.
Well when you look at it from the perspective of points I could see where one might be able to draw your conclusion.
However from the intellectual's point of view: JC is hardly ever in the top weekly contributors, he has been here since the beginning of the website, he makes roughly 3-6 posts per day ( unless he gets into a heated argument ), and the list could continue...
I will leave you with this old adage: Trolls will troll.
Alexander Hamilton: created our nations banking system off of debt which was at the time pure brilliance and it has, for the most part, held true to its originating reason of permanent debt; leading America to constantly be in debt has worked out in the long run all thanks to Hamilton.
Who is Thomas Jefferson again?
We had a horrible president prior to our current, with a campaign slogan of HOPE we put all of our eggs into one basket: ultimately leading us as Americans to question a president who is doing a dammed good job.
We as a country were looking for a quick fix for everything. Even though Obama clearly stated in several debates that he wouldn't reach any of his goals in under 6 years; everyone looked past that and as one year turns into the next we get further into believing Rush Limbaugh and all of the other ignorant politicians who care about: staying politicians and supporting what the majority of their side believes no matter what the circumstance.
Ultimately Obama needs some slack.
I expect more out of a troll.
Especially after creating a debate that causes people to question whether or not you in actuality are a troll, which you knew the answer to start; yes you are.
I don't know you from any debates, however judging from the other posts here I am going to call it, however you made an epicly antithetic retort to Anarchy. Making me question whether or not you are a quality troll.
Maybe you should have made the debate: Am I a good troll?
I'd put my money on a landslide.
but this was an honest waste of time
To you it was ultimately a waste of time, and I understand that. We as human beings hold differentiating interests, so as a mere suggestion; don't post a response to a debate topic you feel holds no meaning to you.
Both books are practically worthless.
If that is the case post another debate that is just another repetition of the thousands already on this overloaded website.
before you post a debate
I will post anything I want feed back on, I was interested in what people would generally say about the topic at hand.
In short; Fuck off.
That is not the point I was going for.
The point was the man stated a hyperbole, and I merely asserted that my x box lasted a significant amount of time longer than a month.
That and not to mention it was banged around constantly.
It was a durable machine, and had it been taken care of I guarantee it would have lasted much longer than 3 years.
It is what they eat at school.
Many children eat 2 meals a day at school, which mathematically constitutes for two thirds of their daily intake of food ( hypothetically ).
Now if schools only offered healthy choices that would make that "quarter pounder cheese burger" an essentially fine thing to eat once in awhile. I don't know how many people you know personally that eat out every night, in all honesty the painted picture is that every single family eats out every night. Which isn't the truth, especially now with the economy as it is.
So if children are subject to junk food at school and home, compared to junk food at home and healthy food at school. Would you really say that the first option is the better?
Dear Corbindallas,
I am not an Atheist so do not act as though I am one. The debate question at hand is "Atheism is illogical" to which I replied with the first thing that rose into my cerebellum; Atheism is logical and Theists believe in blind faith.
I myself am a Deist. So I am going to break it off right here. And leave your question unanswered and ask you this; Which statement is true?
The statement below is false.
The statement above is true.
I believe it falls into the same category as your question.
Sincerely,
Dawolfman
If you are talking about loading times then yes, it is definitely up there. It is more than likely caused by the hundreds of people creating worthless debates that the system then stores online on this very website, whereas I think that the debates over 500 Days that never reached popularity should just be archived away.
This site tends to crash a lot, and is excruciatingly slow.
Well how should I know?
Just looking for your opinion here.
I don't know every christian in the world.
Obviously.
Saying that ALL Christians are closed minded is... well... CLOSED MINDED!
I'm not saying ALL, I said the majority. It might be a case of correlation is not causation however from my personal statistics this is the average Christian.
And no, I do not go hostile when confronted by an athiest about my beliefs, and I don't know many Christians who do.
Might I inquire as to where you live?
I don't see how you can point your finger at Christians when atheists can not only be closed-minded, but also pretty darn rude as well (I should know, I lived with 3 for 2 and a half years).
I'm not an atheist, and I'm not defending atheism I am defending the idea that different people from different religions end up being close-minded when it comes to certain aspects of life when another religion intrudes upon their own.
So you lived with three atheists for 2 in a half years, are you trying to say that ALL atheists are the same? Seems a bit closed-minded to me.
Oh I realize not everyone is the same, which is why I chose an example to represent all religious preferences.
So you believe that Jesus is the deity of Christianity?
Ok.
Well then, if you don't argue with them why post on a debate ( meant for arguing ) regarding a subject you don't argue with?
In all honesty all the branches off of Adam and Eve are wrong, the original is the closest thing to being believable not this whole Catholicism, Christianity argument. Take the religion back to its roots before it branched off and then you might have the only believable part of it, other than that your religion gets lost within humans editing what is far beyond humans to edit ( that is of course if you believe in a superior being ).
I was looking for something a little more in depth, thanks for trying though.
The point of it isn't to say that God doesn't necessarily exist, it is to ask those whom believe in Christianity whether or not they think God is good from the standpoint of their own bible.
This is no contradiction.
What the newer version states is that all laws stated are true, and are never at fault.
Which would mean that the old law stated above from Deuteronomy would then be true, this is no contradiction. Merely a statement which led me to the question is Good good? Due to the Lord stating that we should stone our children if they are drunkards.
To God is Good but mostly faithful and He shows up right on time.
Please clarify this is incoherent.
Everyone have their own believes and like to start crap sometimes but there is only one God, Jesus Christ who is with all and through all.
Who knows maybe yours is the right one.
And Jesus Christ is the prophet of the religion you speak of, he is not actually the deity.
The quote from Deuteronomy is saying that children who misbehave will be stoned to death.
This is an law from the Old Testament, and the other quote above from Matthew states that all laws are correct. And they always will be.
So when our children misbehave ( i.e. be a drunkard ) they should be stoned to death.
But in harry potters movie there is no real villans in the movie.All there is are a couple of weird lokkin dudes dressed in black and the way to kill people is to say weird sounding words,a flash of lights come on and the persons dead.Not to forget on harry potter robert pattinson who plays edward cullen is sedrick diggery on harry potter.
So you can't tell who the villains are? Lol.
So what does Robert Pattinson holding a role in a Harry Potter movie have to do with anything?
Twilight is only a fad, the fan base has a majority of females. Tell me are you a fan of "chick flicks"?
The Harry Potter books killed the Twilight books in every aspect, just due to the graphicness of Twilight you assume it is a better movie/book? That is nonsense.
The Harry Potter movies/books are for all age groups, whereas Twilight is mainly for teens and young adults. However Harry Potter in its entire entity is a better work.
What exactly do you mean by school communities?
Where I am from school principal choices are selected by the super intendant and the school district board, the choices are then voted on by the parents whom have children attending the school where the principal is being voted upon.
The best dog?
Well being the owner of a Doberman Pincher, I must say the Doberman Pincher is the most superior breed of canine.
This answer of course has nothing to do with the fact that I own such dog, and the most superior dog 5 years ago would have been an English Bulldog. More specifically that dog would have been named Jerry.
You said 1.5 million wasn't very much, then proceed to take a lower sum.
But, without the job, you could spend all your time reading. Of, with enough money, you could buy the house next door to Stephen King!
However reading all day everyday wouldn't satisfy me I don't think. I have seen rich people become bored with living, with the right job I could constantly be meeting new people and never becoming to antisocial.
You could if you had the money.
Still wouldn't however, I'd want my child to see how life really was and not give him/her the world as far as material possessions went.
Nope, we're dying much sooner than that.
I'm worrying less ;)
I wouldn't buy the island, just live on it.
Not with half a million you're not!
Ha! 1.5 Million?
Yes, 1.5 million dollars.
That's not really very much.
500 Thousand would keep me out of debt as I work a regular 40 hour a week job, and let the interest build on that million.
They claim - most likely erroneously, but that is open for debate - that it takes $1M to raise one child. Hand-me-downs will decrease the cost of the succeeding children, but $1.5M really is very little.
I disagree. Then again I wouldn't buy my child a Benz at 16.
Also, don't forget about inflation over the next few decades.
We're all dieing in 2012 anyway, why worry about later years?
I'd take about $.5M; move to a very cheap island in the south Pacific.
Sounds a bit contradictory my Canadian friend.
Today homosexuals are still definitely not considered normal by more than half of the population, however since it is between two consenting adults who know what they are doing it is between them.
Pedophilia may not be a choice, however sexual relations between an adult and a child will not be normal. At least not in my country, if homosexuals are still shunned and beaten up just do to how they are in this day and age they still haven't made it to tomorrow.
The ideals of Pedophilia still involve illegal activities, if a 15 year old can't go out with an 18 year old what makes you think laws will change for a 40 year old to have sexual relations with a child?
Consenting adults can do whatever they want with each other as far as sex and I are concerned. However an adult molesting a child is not okay in my eyes, whether or not I am empathetic towards the adult who can not help the urges he/she feels.
people used to think gay guys were perverts too cuz they liked it up the arse
However gay guys taking it up the arse understand what they are doing and obviously enjoy it to some extent, whereas an adult molesting a child is the adult pleasing their needs whilst psychologically traumatizing the child.
Easy rocker, eaaasssyyyy boy.
I had already corrected myself on this 550 day argument less than a month ago, right above this post you have here.
You see being a teenager it takes time for me to learn and begin to understand things such as psychology, something which I am now studying.
When I had posted that I was extremely blind to quite a lot, but I'm still learning from my mistakes.
My posts become slightly more mature as I advance in age, so if you see something that is well over a year old and sounds like pure gibberish trust me it probably is. Chances are close to a hundred percent that I no longer hold the same view point.
It is something that a lot of people need. It is in human nature to have something to obsess with, for most its religion.
However what most fail to see is the fact that the other half of the world doesn't believe in the same thing that they do, they merely "know" that their religion is correct.
But isn't that paradoxical? When Bill knows he is right and Habib knows he is right, which makes them both wrong in some aspect while there being no absolute proof to disprove either of them.
Religion: Never has so much been said about so little
I concur.
Everything you say makes perfect sense and is crystal clear.
However that doesn't tell me how/why Communism cannot indefinitely work. It can, maybe not forever but which government can boast that?
As long as Communism is sustainable for even a day, it can technically work due to its being sustainable.
