Though that was funny it was bull.
I would bet you any amount of money that they skipped over quite a few interviews of people who knew basic knowledge, simply keeping the idiots on to further ask them questions that would only embarrass the American people more.
The same could be done with England; doing a street interview and asking relatively the same questions to roughly 100 people and finding 7 people who held no basic knowledge of events, currencies, coalitions, and even countries both current and past.
If it is used for what it is supposed to be used for then yes Facebook is a benefit. However people seem to believe that Facebook is merely a place to play graphically poor games which help no person and are solely time eaters.
I still use Facebook to its original use: being able to connect to fellow classmates and discuss anything from politics to the homework that is due the next day.
So I will say that Facebook is good for people if they use it to the initial intended purpose; though many use it for reasons which are either questionable or extreme wastes of time.
This was utterly incoherent and I had not even the slightest idea as to what you are talking about.
What do you mean homework is absolutely and only for us ?
It will be a huge loss to those who are studying if there is no homework.
This argument as well makes no sense.
The PC is more complicated, and not quite as user friendly as a Mac. However I am computer savvy and hold no issue with PC operating systems. I have been using the same 40 GB hard drive lap top for 7 years and it runs smooth as silk due to me resetting the computer to initial set up, running Comodo ( free security system ), and keeping my processes below 90K ;)
So as far as I am concerned Mac's are overpriced, PCs are the way to go if you are computer savvy!
I have always had much more fun playing the Halo series compared to the Call of Duty series.
I feel that Halo requires a player of skill, whereas Call of Duty calls for someone who can press the trigger on a grenade launcher; or where someone can be in a helicopter picking people off with kill streaks that show utterly no skill whatsoever.
One who feels no empathy or sympathy towards any human ( especially one in pain ) are normally unable to be taught how to understand a person.
People whom suffer from APD feel that whatever they do affects nobody else but themselves; even if what they are doing is mass murder.
if this is wrong and there simply is no way to treat them, I'd see deterrence/incapacitation as reasons to keep them separated from society
Certain disorder hosting people should be kept away from society and attempted to be treated; all should have an attempt at rehabilitation as a human is a human. Humans are known for being indifferent to basic ideals such as diseases which are normally incurable; case studies are not a very rare occurence within psychology.
This is a horrid atrocity. Had the physical capability been available anyone should have intervened.
Syria should have never released the couple back to Afghanistan, how Syrian officials could merely accept Afghanistan's promise to simply slap the couple on the wrist and let them be at peace is ludicrous.
In a backwards country such as Afghanistan there really is no such thing as a slap on the wrist for an engaged woman adulterous.
Had Syrian officials been in their right mind they could have avoided this whole situation by not releasing the couple back to Afghanistan.
Had physical intervention been possible then someone should have intervened.
There was no trial, and the actions within themselves were a direct breach of basic human rights.
I find the whole situation disgusting.
Well though it may seem messed up; the people employed by EPIC Security have the choice to quit.
So if EPIC Security had to hire these people with them aware of the knowledge that they would be working X amount of hours and receive X amount of vacation time, so chances are these people went into their jobs fully aware of the time alotted for vacationing: they get no sympathy from me I used to work slave shifts (10 hours no breaks ).
meaning lyrics
I am going to assume you meant "with meaning in the lyrics"
To say that rappers don't have meaning in their lyrics is absurd. When you take the O.G.s of rap they are truly feeling what they rap about, whereas there are some rappers i.e. Soulja Boy whom posses no true skill and also lacks a basic understanding of the English Language.
There are definitely rappers that deserve plethoras of kudos to their ingenuity with the English Language. Rappers such as: Gangstarr, AZ, Lupe Fiasco, Nas, Fabolous and the list goes on...
Rap isn't what it was in the 80's
Yes it is, if not better.
Listening to your local radio station isn't going to let you delve into the true world of rap, that will take you as far as iTunes ( current ) top 100 will. You have to go underground for the good stuff.
something of real life struggle.
So what the rappers that grow up in the worst neighbor hoods, have no money, and are constantly fought and abused don't count due to making it big? So as soon as they land that record deal and move out of the slum they all of a sudden don't fit into the category of rapping about real life struggles?
Well mate as far as I am concerned it is the circle of life.
Some people have only been on this website for 20 minutes, however I can remember a choice few whom have created debates grossing in over 400 posts.
Some are indefinitely not even worth arguing against as they have posted an incoherent argument that, even after disputing it hoping for someone to argue back, no one will defend the person in question.
Some however make epic posts that end up being the highest rated comment and generate a major debate between lasting members of CreateDebate.
So with me it is a love/hate relationship, that leans more on the benefits of love.
;)
Could one not make the argument that those suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder are unable to be treated?
That there are specific people whom didn't commit murder as a crime of passion, however more as a crime to view the suffering of another?
The basic knowledge of sciences within themselves still elude me ...
I am indefinitely a humanities person. As they say everything is eventual and hypothetically I will possibly have a slightly firmer grasp on anything within the field of science in the future.
That being said I concede, and am much more confused with the situation than when I started.
Nothing you have said has changed the fact that allele frequencies change over time.
I said that was fact.
So: Not factual.
I said the specific piece I posted was not factual.
Argumentum ad populum
Ha, I was going to post an argument regarding this however decided against it but apparently left the heading up.
So I will leave this with a question: so is the Theory of Evolution a "proven theory" or is that within itself not coherent?
The theory of evolution is not a law, and is still a theory. Though it is highly testable and holds well evidenced explanations; it still theoretical.
Don't tell me have you ever heard of the "theory of gravity?", as it is a theoretical explanation of observed force between matters.
allele frequencies within a population change over time.
That is a fact.
Human chromosome number 2 is an exant combined match of chimpanzee chromosomes 13 and 14 (a fact explained by the theory) homologous structures exist between closely related taxa (a fact explained by the theory) atavisms occur in organisms (a fact explained by the theory)
There are parts of the Theory of Evolution which still holds the label of theory.
So: Not factual.
Argumentum ad populum
I think there are a number of arguments "for" the bombing of the two Japanese cities during World War II, so I'll take the unpopular role and play Devil's advocate. First off, if you look at the title of this argument, it is "Was the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifiable or not?". Not just "Hiroshima", but Hiroshima [August 6th] AND Nagasaki [August 9th]. Even after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese war machine would not surrender. This really shows how hard the citizens of Japan and the politicians of Japan were fighting in this total war.
Secondly, the usage of Nuclear Weapons for the first time by the United States was relatively fortunate. If it were a country at war with America who'd dropped the first bomb, you could easily argue that due to the tension of this time period the US would've deployed more of them in retaliation. During the Cold War, for example, arms races between the US and Russia led to both sides having hundreds / thousands of nuclear missiles. Since the US was the first to drop the bomb, it set a historical precedent and was used as a deterrant. Despite the low yield of the "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" bombs [modern stockpiles have warheads thousands of times more powerful], the sheer destruction caused gave Nuclear Weapons an area of seriousness and the reality of their destruction that has prevented their usage under the doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction".
If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fought under Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan by American forces using conventional warfare tactics [think: Omaha Beach, Operation Market Garden, etc], would the more powerful Nuclear weapons have been used during later wars? How would the Cold War have progressed differently? If Fat Man or Little Boy were dropped during testing in the Bikini Atoll, would more powerful, modern nuclear bombs have been used in any of the wars since the Second World War?
The Korean War, The Cold War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf Wars, Iraq, even Iran in the future. What would the American Military's stance on the usage of Nuclear bombing be if it didn't have the negative press from the bombing of Japan? It would certainly lack it's biggest deterrent.
Perhaps this could be seen as a constructive or progressive "lesser of two evils". America would not have backed down from Japan, as Japan was starting to lose the battle. Regardless of whether the fight was waged using conventional tactics or nuclear bombs, a similar Japanese death toll would have occurred. These days, the largest argument people see these days against the usage of Nuclear weapons is the debate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps the two bombings actually prevented further loss of life from Nuclear weapons.
There hasn't been a nuclear bombing since on this magnitude [with the exception of the common usage of Tactical Nuclear devices on much smaller magnitudes]. Did the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki save lives, by having the bombing during "favorable conditions"?
1) Low-yield nuclear bombs, by conventional standards.
2) The circumstances were that America was the only one with Nukes.
3) No fear of retaliation, no world-wide destruction followed.
4) Japan clearly had no plan to back down. How many more lives were lost versus a full-on invasion?
5) No American or "Allied" lives were lost.
6) Field-test of a nuclear device, set the precedent for the level of necessity required to drop "The Bomb".
Though my idealogy may fall under the Theory of Evolution; to say Evolution is fact is far fetched.
Pieces of the puzzle are falling together rather nicely, however the pieces haven't connected perfectly especially not well enough to say proven.
Anyway, what the hell do you mean
If it is in italics then that means I didn't say it mate, it means I am quoting.
I think that you forgot the word, not.
I forgot nothing. You just don't understand how to read quotes.
Have you seen Army training?
Marine Corp holds the toughest physically demanding boot camp, that is not debatable.
Lance Corporal Jackson told me
Tertiary biased information.
Are you actually a Marine anyway?
Sorry mate I am a bit confused, did you end up turning your paragraph into statements which were betwixt me and LTyossarian?
That makes this whole situation extrememly confusing.
What is the time frame mate?
The slim xbox percentage is the one you have to use now for the failure rate. Always go by the newer as the older is the reason they made the newer.
55% Failure is only taken of those who reported either favorably or unfavorably. Hey I have a question for you: if you had an xbox and it crashed on you would you report it to Microsoft? Yes you probably would. If your xbox didn't crash would you report it to Microsoft? No you probably wouldn't.
Your statistic is flawed and invalid.
If you had read my earlier post, you would know that some women who work as translators, dog handlers, signallers, and many other trades, often work alongside infantry units, even elite ones such as paras or marines.
I read it originally only a few days ago, my debate turned from you over to Zombee and had completely forgotten your mention of this.
However as for linguists they are prized possessions. If they are working in the field they are doing so within an office.
signallers
I am not familiar with the Tech school of a signaler, or dog handler. My questions for you are of these average women who are holding jobs that have no need of a restriction based on sex: when you say they are working in the field do you mean they are doing the physical tasks of lets say a Marine? If a soldier is wounded and weighs 200 pounds is the female linguist already physically strong enough to carry the soldier to safety? Is this dog handler trained to give cover fire with an M-16 while lobbing grenades over 30 yards? Is that signaler ( as a requirement of their respected Tech school ) required to do the same physical activities as that Marine infantrymen was during his Tech school like say run a 6 minute mile?
Don't tell me about yourself, tell me about the average woman who takes up these jobs. Does BMT ( which has an easier workload to graduate ) make a woman who is anatomically not as physically strong as a man ( on an extreme average ) automatically able to carry out tasks that for the average woman are not actually physically possible?
My motion: a waiver for those specially qualified.
And as for the graduation standard, why are you asking me that?
I addressed that above.
I believe the standards should be the same, but did i make the rules?
There would be a much lower demographic of women in the military.
I think you will find, that whilst the fitness requirement for women is considerably lower, many women, myself included, would have passed even if we had been men.
What you are saying exactly is this : If I had been a man I would have still passed the physical exam.
What you are saying is incoherent, what you meant to say I hope was : I think you will find, that whilst the fitness requirement for women is considerably lower , many women ( including myself , could pass the physical requirement of a male soldier even though we are women.
In which case I have no dispute there.
There is a handful of females that can be a special operative, but that is a handful. My proposition is that the job of special ops and jobs of that caliber of physical activity are not listed as a choice for women as not the average woman is physically capable of being in Spec Ops. What I am saying is that a waiver should be administered if a female passes a male graduation standard for physical fitness.
It is fair and equal and would keep the drop out rating of women spec ops to an extreme low.
homophobe
Hating/Being scared of a person due to who they are as a person is not ok in any form, the one being persecuted cannot help who they are. If you were an African American and someone hated you because of that you think that both the persecutor and the one being persecuted are equally wrong?
Yes. Not gay as in i take 'it up the bum' gay but gay as in 'you're a fag', gay.
You didn't differentiate at all, and I feel that even if you had your statement would have been incoherent.
neither of them can help who they are.
You are an ignorant person.
They already have this same work load as an average infantry soldier, as well as say, being a translator.
Women already have the same workload as an average infantry soldier? Then why might I ask are their requirements to graduate lower than the requirements of men?
And what does being a translator have to do with anything?
I think you will find, that whilst the fitness requirement for women is considerably lower, many women, myself included, would have passed even if we had been men.
What in the hell are you talking about?
Even if you had been a man you would have passed?
I'm sorry but I don't understand where you are going with this.
but how many people would pass those courses if they do not have the hands on experience
Every person within the virtual medical field must still physically pass all tests required of their field of interest, as in an EMT would have to do all necessary physical tasks before being certified.
Why was this a dispute?
even if they are fairly rare.
Which is why I said offering the job to all female applicants would be ludicrous when a waiver can be released to any female who meets the necessary requirements of a combat specialized soldier. To hold a whole 8 weeks of training for only a slight minority ending up graduating would be a useless waste of government spending. Whilst the elite women can merely get a waiver which allows them to fall into rank next to any man.
hahaha is this an air force DEP talking shit?
No, I'm not.
Marines have the toughest graduation requirements son... so wake up.
I never said they didn't, though Navy Seals hold onto that title. For regular enlistment sure Marines do have the toughest BMT.
No it wouldn't the Marines are the best as far as being physical goes.
Humans differentiate from eachother. Though the different branches teach us that teamwork is essential, it does not change that one person is different from another. You say your average Marine can do 60 push ups a minute, I am sure we can both find people who can surpass that limit with ease.
As far as I'm concerned mate, we as members of the military are swearing to protect our country. Arguing over whose branch is better isn't worth it.
Every man that is in the military had to pass basic military training, and that in itself shows a mans worth.
That is an excellent and valid point.
What I was trying to convey is something such as a morbidly obese man might have a picture of when he was in the prime shape of his life, or possibly someone having a profile picture that isn't even them. That is what I meant by false representation, not when a person puts off a front that they are somebody whom they are not. Though the way I worded my statement made such a conclusion indefinitely logical =\
female bodybuilding has a healthy following
Did you mention this due to me mentioning it earlier?
These women are undoubtedly as strong, or stronger, than the average soldier.
That is a bold statement, one which you are obviously not giving the average combat specialized soldier very much credit.
Your average combat infantry Marine is trained to hold the physical capability of running a mile in a half within 9 minutes, and run a solid 40 minutes straight.
I feel that your average female body builder would have trouble accomplishing such a task.
There are many different physical requirements of an infantry trained soldier, ones that I feel a female would not have the capability of accomplishing. The extremely limited few who do hold those capabilities can get a waiver, however the majority of women joining the military should not get to apply for such a job. It should be a request that is judged on a physical capability basis.
It seems like most of the women interested in such roles would be fairly likely to be physically qualified for it.
If you look at the requirements upon graduating between a male and female recruit you ought to note a noticeable difference. They are not as physically qualified as a male is, regardless of equality: a female trainee upon graduating did not have to meet the same physical requirements as a male trainee.
The military is an amazing opportunity for men and women alike, however I adamantly feel that some jobs should be reserved for men, unless a woman falls into the category of an overly physically qualified female.
There is absolutely no sexism present within my argument, any that is perceivable was either a mistake on my part or was a comment which was inevitable.
No I am not in the Army, I am in the United States Air Force E-3 currently in the DEP.
The Marines have the toughest boot camp out of any of the other branches.
That doesn't make the Marines the best branch, not even the best at push ups.
The Marines are the strongest both mentally and physically.
That is a biased misconception. I could say the same for my branch or any other branch, and it would still hold the same level of credibility.
do you think kids under the age of 18 should do drugs
A more specific question would be much appreciated.
I will assume that you are asking about drugs such as Marijuana, X, Zanex, basic hallucinogens, stimulants, and depressants AKA drugs that get you high in some sense.
No kids under the age of 18 should not do drugs, it is bad for the developing mind. Once they are in their mid twenties I could care less, however before their mind has fully developed messing around with different drugs can be detrimental to one's development as well as being possibly fatal.
13 year old america female
In all honesty ( and I am being totally truthful ) most of the ideas discussed on this website are over your head. I would suggest sticking to debates where you can post something valid on, I would also suggest re-reading your posts as when you write as sloppy as you do people tend to decide you have no valid point to make.
This will be my last post on this subject, as we are off the debate topic.
Had the intention that was perceived by you was to promote creationism I would have most likely clicked "dispute" opposed to "support".
I meant that ignorance is bliss in the sense that those whom are consumed by the ideals of creationism find themselves ignorant of the livelihood of those around them who happen to not follow or denunciate their personal path. It is these people who violate the basic human rights of others whom find themselves in not only feeling a sense of accomplishment after a good picketing, but find that they themselves have done something for the betterment of mankind. Which is where I believe the phrase "ignorance is bliss" applies to such people.
housing children bickering amongst each other regarding the benign topics of fashion
That is disgusting.
one sided debates to incite uproar
Nuisances.
he would be a breath of fresh air
I miss him being the only one up at 3 A.M. est.
Plus he said I should write a book :p
You indefinitely have a brilliant mind.
You are completely wrong to the core, Terminator left because he was tired of liberal infestation of this website as I am.
So are you going to leave?
TERMINATOR screamed for attention, though I almost always appreciated his input.
He was gunning for the number one spot, and even posted on Kuklapolitan's page "hey you have more points than me, who are you?" which I could have taken out of context and the true meaning behind it was merely to be humerous.
However, if he personally told you this then there is possibly some truth to it. However viewing the situation from my understanding the man simply came in to realization of the near impossibility of breaching JoeCavalries rank.
I am actually going to be shipping to basic training in under a year with the Air Force, on the course to become an officer.
The military holds many amazing opportunities and most branches now are only accepting diplomas. Times are getting tough, and more and more people are shooting for the military.
She never said she could see Russia from her house...
No but Tina Fey did, Jesus they look identical.
Well the interview itself was a disaster, as Palin really wasn't prepared for the questions being asked for her. She was fairly inconsistent with finishing her thoughts, which made her look like a fool she isn't the only crazy one. I mean look at Joe Biden that man is a lunatic, and hardly anyone seems to notice.
However I just noticed that you are banned, therefore I will end with bringing you back up a point.
Evolution is still within itself a theory. It has yet to be factually proven as a definite, hence the name "Theory of Evolution".
Just due to you and I being different than the accepted normalcy of things does not mean we should oppress the mindsets of others.
I am saying that since both are technically theories should they not both be taught?
I asked your age to make sure you could comprehend what I was explicating to you, as English could be your secondary language. I will assume it is your tertiary and will suggest a different medium to spend your time on, however this is your choice. Personally at 13 I would have rather been on Myspace or Facebook than a debating website.
:l
I am going to cast my ballot for not missed. I believe that he finally realized he would not be able to keep up with the pace. Even if he was accumulating around 300 points per week Joe's consistent 30 or so kept him in the positive by to grandeur a number ;)
At the cellular level there's no difference between female muscle and male muscle. So, theoretically a woman with X pounds of muscle mass will be as strong as a male with X pounds of muscle mass. Women are designed to carry more muscle in the lower body, so she will probably have stronger legs and glutes and he will have stronger arms/back/chest.
We ( Women ) have fewer muscle fibers (especially in the upper body), so it's difficult for us to achieve the muscle mass of even an untrained man.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/
That would be from two separate body builders.
Women are not designed to be as strong as men, however there are few exceptions.
like i said b4 online is better but not by much
That is your opinion and I respect that, however people differentiate from eachother. It is within human nature to have direct contact with fellow humans, however those that find they do not need this contact fall under the category are exceptions.
wat do you think your doing now
I think I am engaging in a form of online debate.
hint: i have never seen or met you b4
You are correct, however whether or not I am getting social stimulation from this is totally different.
and another thing I LOVE WII TENNIS
It was an analogy.
because i live in a bad neibor hood so i don't go out side but i can stay looking healthy by doing wat ?
Might I ask how old you are before I get to deep into this?
I am only a mere 18, and when I started on this site I was roughly late 15; I have re read several of my arguments and they greatly embarrass me....
Perseverance does pay off indefinitely, I am currently actually going to State finals within bio-medical debate as my team and I won 1st in districts and regionals.
However since my recent return to this site I feel that my posts have definitely gone up a few levels in coherency.
I also hold a broader knowledge base for different concepts including political ideologies.
This post deserves no credit to me and was used to kick the debate off as is the opposing post on the affirmative side, I choose to defend which post my opinion resides on which is in fact that Anarchism is not a valuable political ideology.
Anarchism is an ideology which holds onto ideals which if given the opportunity to flourish would merely turn into a dystopian society. Where people find themselves starving to death without an adequate supply of food, resorting to thievery and murder as a mode of survival. As a society which removes the state in its entirety leads people to resort to their primitive states: where physical dominance decides who eats at the end of the day.
I don't know if that is any good, however I am on three hours of sleep currently.
far the most logical argument I've seen you make
That depresses me =\
I wouldn't go so far as to say I was making an inference, As the the gentleman's posts on both sides of the debate could lead me to the conclusion as I stated. Therefore I would put it at more of an educated guess than an inference.
However my statement was purely speculation.
If what DaWolfman is saying is true
What I am saying is if another country launches missiles at another country then interference by other countries is necessary. There is nothing to dispute here.
than no wars can be won
?
in order to stop the terrorists, Israel must destroy their rocket launching sites, training centers, and headquarters near enough that they can do damage.
I never said that, get your facts straight.
If Israel did what DaWolfman is saying it should, it would allow terrorists to do their jobs with impunity.
Your question was why can't Israel host a war against terrorism. I answered that they themselves cannot if they are interfering with other countries', as a country in itself does not represent terrorism a certain slice of it's inhabitants do.
When people represent themselves on online dating sites they only choose to show their aspects that they find to be attractive. Which leads to false representation which ultimately leads to a let down once a face to face meeting occurs.
Judging from personal experience ( those around me ) I have yet to see an online relationship end up working, so my personal opinion on online dating is that it is not worth it.
Touché.
I don't think that is a very appropriate analogy.
It wasn't one of my best, I was at a loss for a good analogy. However I personally feel that the general idea is the same, I believe that the point of the debate isn't if you get both. It is if you solely socialize online that is a link to loneliness. To which in my mind ( with no studies to back it up ) could indefinitely be a direct correlation to loneliness, as it is in human nature to socialize.
It can be, but isn't necessarily, rooted in physical activity.... fake or necessarily less satisfying?
According to what you have told me you get equal doses of both forms of communication, therefore neither are less satisfying. However you would need to step in another's shoes to be empathetic with the idea of solely socializing online. From personal experience when I was ill for two weeks my only form of communication was via my computer, I can tell you even with all of my "online friends" I found myself in a slight form of depression.
Though I still stand by my initial ideal, I do believe you make solid points.
Regional intervention is often more effective at producing change. Whilst groups such as the UN may be successful in keeping the peace in the countries they are involved in (questionable in itself), once the soldiers leave, their philosophy leaves too. By having regional groups intervene, we can be sure that the influences they have in the country will not leave once the troops have, as regional politics will ensure that progress after peacekeeping is continued.
Women are equal to men in the armed forces, but they are not the same as men. While the vast proportion of jobs in the armed forces are open equally to men and women, there are some to which women are just not physically suited. While some women are able to meet the absolute physical requirements for front-line combat such as carrying a wounded soldier, throwing grenades or digging a trench in hard terrain, most are not.
Anarchism is marked by a utopian, unrealistic argument - a diatribe based on the principle that the grass is always greener on the other side. Far from freeing humans, anarchy allow them to be dominated by primitive forces that a controlling state has eliminated, such as the use of physical force by the strong to oppress the weak. Laws and a police force are necessary to prevent this. A state allows industries to be organized and crops to be grown so as to support its citizens, and without these high-intensity techniques there is no way that all the population could be fed. All advances in art and science have been made possible by a state that brings people and resources together. Anarchism is merely a backward and dreamy approach to serious political matters.
Anarchism is essentially a fight for human freedom. Modern states, even those which claim to be democracies, stifle their citizens with oppressive and artificial machinery such as laws and taxes. These are imposed by the people who run the state - the elites, the governing classes. Anarchists believe it is better to live without such controls imposed by such people. As it is in human nature to be free.
Many African countries end up being involved in wars that are set out to procure diamond mines and other resources within war zones, and thus certain countries end up having a greater vested interest in fueling wars, opposed to resolving them.
Interference is more often than not a necessity, especially when regarding genocide. As it is the duty of other nations to protect the innocent when a nation's defenses are either not enough or are the problem within themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Those are all pretty good things that have come out of America.
And my own personal point has been proven: that you truly are unable to discuss anything in a serious or coherent manner.
no i am mearly stating that by keeping our language you are either lazy or british wannabe's
So you are saying that after we kicked your ass in the Revolutionary War we should have spoke an entirely different dialect. This isn't in the form of a question, this is what you are saying. And if you cannot see how ridiculously stupid this idea is, you have serious mental issues mate.
but it is not broken away if it uses our language.
So let me get this straight: you are saying that America isn't its own country due to it having a similar ( not identical ) dialect as England?
So Australia probably isn't its own entity either, due to them using a dialect based off of English. Yeah going by your logic that makes perfect sense.
Human beings need direct interaction and contact with other people, it is just in our nature.
Communicating online is essentially fake interaction, as a tennis player playing Wii Tennis is essentially the same in that the player isn't really playing tennis and the player will feel as though something is lacking and that is the reality of the situation: they were only pretending to play tennis.
your own, american language
So do you not understand that America broke away from England?
that was my point, let me know when this changes
Let me make a point: you are an idiot if you think that England is better than America due to America using the same language as it's founding country.
You are a redundant dolt.
no what i am suggesting is that you (an american) are speaking english - pure laziness
Do you not understand that America broke away from England?
let me know when your iq increases enough to work out what is meant in a basic sentence
I really lack any form of a graspable idea as to what in the hell you are talking about.
Oh man this was rich.
For one reason, 2010 has not happened yet.
You do realize that 2012 was a movie right?
And just to let you know ( so we are on the same page ) we are in the year 2011.
Second, 2012 might not going to happen.
Well the year 2012 is inevitable, whether or not we as the human race make it their is what you could make an argument over. And it would be "might not happen", so take the "going to" right out of there.
im sorry
Apology accepted.
who cant be bothered to make up there own language and stole ours?
Colonists were British, that dammed British education system must of missed a couple centuries...
You see the colonists came from England ( want to take a guess at what language they spoke? ), and eventually broke away from British rule after being victorious in a war to free us as the American people ( who are English ) from the oppression of England.
So what you are trying to say is that the British stole their own language from the British?
like i say,either use a valid arguement or not.
Maybe if British people had a better education system you wouldn't misspell an average of one word per sentence, my vocabulary ( judging by what I have read you type ) is far broader than yours.
and made no points what so ever with regards to the arguement.
I didn't pull us off subject mate, you might want to re read previous posts before pointing your finger rashly as my original dispute did nothing but make a point towards your argument.
now do you have a point you wish to convey about the given topic, or are you just going to continue wasting my time
If I am wasting your time I suggest you don't reply, as me replying to your perforated arguments gives me nothing but easy points.
