Because understanding the difference between biology and gender roles is worse than actively sabotaging efforts to prevent the decimation of the human race. What fucked up priorities you've got.
This line of thought also evinces a failure to understand the difference between individuals and groups, resulting in the fallacious tendency of conflating individual decisions and beliefs with those of their peers.
He meets the criteria to run for office, so he's running for office. Democrats don't need to like him for him to run as one. The real question will be his success in the polls. Trying to write off a group as hypocrites because a single individual self-identifies with that group is illogical, for it places an impossible burden of agency on an issue over which they have no agency.
Put another way, if a Republican were to Tweet, "The Holohoax never happened!1! #TRUMP2020", would that tweet immediately turn all Republicans into Holocaust deniers? No, because individuals have agency over their own actions, not over the actions of others.
My point exactly.
America lost in Vietnam. America half-lost in Korea. America is losing in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
America has a pretty shitty track record for war.
And yet it seems that nobody is giving a second thought to the consequences of the campaign of demonization against China.
My concern with China stems from my observation that war with China is on the horizon. Only idiots would sooner bury their heads in the sand than prepare for and temper the possibilities of the future destruction of humanity.
If you do not know of China's expansionism then you must have been living on the moon, or maybe even Pluto for the past 30 years or more.
China's alleged expansionism involves asserting its power over lands and waters it traditionally claimed but which it lost during the period of Colonialist vandalism referred to by the Chinese as the Century of Humiliation following the Chinese loss in the Opium War. But I wouldn't call that expansionism, which implies a movement beyond oneself rather than a reclaiming of oneself.
You'd be better off citing One Belt, One Road. But still that would be a very uncharitable interpretation, precisely what one would be expected not to be able to see beyond following a lifetime of vicious propaganda. I say phooey:
America and Europe have spent centuries exploiting the developing world, holding them down and interfering in their internal affairs whenever they feel like it. China comes by and offers them the resources to build themselves up, to follow China's example, quite frankly, and hopefully rise out of the poverty which is a consequence of the centuries of neglect and resultant lack of infrastructure.
It is a congenital characteristic of the human psyche' to be free to follow their heart and pursue their dreams.
Thought-terminating cliche.
It was this free spirit that spawned the pioneers and entrepreneurs that made America the greatest nation on earth.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Thought-terminating cliche.
Rank nonsense.
People the world over will always strive for freedom of political and religion expression and it is wholly wrong of you to expect people to lie down and roll over so their masters can stamp their Jack-Boot on their throats.
At no point did I expect that. Are you daft? My argument is not that Hong Kong should surrender, I've made absolutely no comment whatsoever on the legitimacy of the protests. What I have argued is that the MSM is far too harsh on China, seemingly working to effectively, if not by intent, turn the American populace in favor of going onto the path of war with China. Is there a person on CD who thinks war with China would not mean the end of the human race?
The Hong Kong Issue
Why does every attempt at a discussion about the MSM anti-China propaganda machine turn into a discussion about the merits of Hong Kong? They've been in the streets for months and China has still not "cracked down", despite claims of a crack down for months in the media. It's still going on, growing more and more violent by the protesters, while the police keep firing tear gas and ink and a grand total of 11 bullets (as of Oct 31, see here.) This contrasts quite significantly with the many deaths reported in other protests currently active (see this report from Washington Post). And even though the one death immediately attributable to anybody was a "murder" (as the Chinese reportedly identified it) committed by protesters, they are still shown in the most sympathetic of lights.
I'm glad somebody is able to see that there's a difference between defending a country's human rights abuses and saying that our extreme hostility towards that country should be tempered by considerations of the planet-destroying consequences of that hostility getting out of hand.
Such extreme hostility. Nobody seems capable of understanding the nuance of this debate. I don't give a fuck what China's like. I'm concerned about the media trying to start a war with China, a war which cannot be won.
Says who? American media?
China is one of the safest countries in the world, with a homicide rate of 0.62 per 100,000 people according to the UN numbers for 2016. America's rate was 5.35.
China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty in the last few years and plans on eliminating extreme poverty entirely by the early 2020s.
America has as many surveillance cameras as China, despite having a billion fewer people. This to preempt accusations that they're a surveillance state (which they probably are, but it should be seen in a comparative perspective lest we judge more harshly than is warranted).
The Western world is content with their fantasies that China is nothing but a hellish totalitarian dystopia. But is it true? We only hear the bad stories. When every single action is viewed through a lens of bigotry, fear, and with an expectation of utter inhumanity, then we are prone to taking moderately negative or even neutral developments as the pinnacle of evil.
At first they said they want the extradition bill to be tossed. That happened. They weren't happy.
Wikipedia has a list of five other demands they've made. I've watched a lot of videos from various news sources - none Chinese, other than SCMP - and the thing that seems to be uniting them is a common sense of frustration against China. How can that end? Have China step back and give Hong Kong independence? What do they actually want to see? I've read dozens of articles and watched many hours of video, but I'm not entirely clear what solid aims they have other than to voice their discontent as much as possible.
I hear so many anti-China people calling China "expansionist". What justification do you have for that? It is strutted about as if it is just plain obvious, everybody wants to conquer the world. That seems to me to be a very Western mentality, one which I've not seen reflected in any of the Chinese history or literature I've read.
But at the end of the day, discussing whether or not China is worthy of condemnation is not what I'm interested in here. My issue is whether or not it is wise to continue provoking one of the most powerful countries on earth with a never-ending onslaught of extremely one-sided claims, some false, some true, seemingly designed to create popular hostility against them to the point where war could easily become palatable to the broader public. This especially given that America can't even win a war against Afghanistan or Iraq, small, powerless third-world countries.
Would you disagree that their anti-terrorism policies, if they are as you describe, seem significantly more human-friendly than America's? They may deprive people of their rights, which is not a good thing, but America's deprives people of their lives, many thousands of people, many completely innocent. Additionally, the destruction of infrastructure in places like Iraq and Afghanistan severely punishes so much of the population, the vast majority of whom are innocent. Contrarily, China is working to economically develop Xinjiang.
You seem to misunderstand my argument, as seems to be the case every single time I have ever discussed this with anybody.
I am not defending China.
I'm saying it's idiotic to be demonizing China as rabidly as we are.
This debate title is a tautology.
Liberals are liberal, hence their name.
Do you mean the American Democratic Party? They're pretty damn center, but nowhere near as bad as they could be. It is a shame, Americans, that you don't know what it is like to live in a nation that is so afraid of change, so afraid of all these scary banned words. In regular countries, children fear the bogeyman in the closet. In America, children fear the communist going around taking away anything that makes him better than his age-mates.
If you feel so strongly about the Democrats being liars, I'd hate to know what you feel for the Republicans.
Terminator Salvation is out of the equation, considering that Schwarzenegger had nothing to do with it; however, he has been involved in various other projects: The Expendables, appearing for the first time next to Willis (and the legendary Sylvester Stallone), Predator, which spawned many sequels and was lauded by many as one of the greatest action films of the century; Commando, Total Recall, and the two Conan films are more examples of his greatness.
Where was Bruce Willis whilst Arnold was making some of the most memorable examples of the action genre? Moonlighting.
Bruce Willis may have more versatility in that he can act in a variety of movies - Arnold, too, has done a variety - but Schwarzenegger has proven that he is more than just an actor: governor, bodybuilder, action star. He may not have the filmography of Bruce Willis, but you must remember that these other endeavours have taken up quite a bit of his time; memorable in the films he has starred in, he has appeared as Hercules, as The Terminator in one of the highest rated film franchises ever made, and even as a cop-cum-kindergarten teacher.
I shouldn't have won most missed, I'm back. Isn't that what I said in the last movie, I'll be back. I meant it! A TERMINATOR is never really gone for good.
Well, I guess you win. I like your first religious debate idea, I'll go challenge you now.
Bruce Willis may have been in some classics, but Arnold is Arnold. He has the body and the style of a true action hero, and the cinematic masterpieces to back up such a claim. From playing Hercules to a kindergarten teacher, he shows off his excellence in action heroism, never failing to excite and amaze.
My longtime ally, you've been a pleasure to have on this site. Wouldn't have been as good without you.
Where's the "Nobody should vote. Democracy is bullshit" option? Well, I guess that's how new debates are come up with.
Educated people - depending on just how educated you're talking - can be out of touch with reality. They shouldn't be held as the deciders of right and wrong, they're just people.
Everybody should decide what is right and wrong for themselves. Vote AnarchY!
Yeah, I think he mentioned something like that. Why don't we just ask him?
TERMINATOR, are you Canadian?
Why yes I am, dear TERMINATOR.
See that. We are all crazy up here.
So that's the pic I used to have! I couldn't remember. I probably should change it, a name like TERMINATOR needs a picture equally menacing, and dear old Jessica Fletcher is anything but menacing (unless you're the killer!).
Your avatar has changed too, hasn't it? Something seems off.
I'm well aware of your capacity for self worship by the way.
I'm sure everybody from the old days is aware of it.
Are you coming back to try dominate the leaderboard again?
No way. I'll post my nickle's worth (we got rid of the penny in Canada, so I'm done with saying "two cents' worth"), but without going overboard.
Too bad, that seems like a good idea. Could be simplified a bit, but it is workable.
Justified insofar as it saved American lives. People died, but they were the enemy. Killing anybody is never good, but it is the duty of the American government to protect American citizens, not Japanese citizens.
Yeah, my pic is of Angela Lansbury (I think I changed it from whatever it was before right before leaving), but I think the one the debate creator was talking about was the one on the site's main page: Summer Glau.
iamdavidh, jessald, and andsoccer16 are the three primary enemies I can remember from the good ol' days, yet only David seems to still come on. I take it Bohemian has replaced the other two, dear ally?
Hmmm, a very typical topic of debate. Maybe, maybe not - we shall see.
Ah, Rice, it has been too long.
This really doesn't make for much of a debate: I am the kind of clown who speaks about himself in the third person.
I like the first part of your debate proposal: space exploration is a waste of cash.
I want to wait a few days first and see if anybody else comes up with a good idea before I commit myself to one.
Well look no further, for I am here. Not forever, I'm not going on another 500 day CD binge, but I'll be on maybe for an evening or two every week.
My dear Joe, you caught that one there. I was hoping somebody would see it!
Like every other viral image or status or what-have-you on facebook, they may claim that he'll be punched in the face for every like, but even after 10,000 likes, he still hasn't been punched in the face, and he won't be, at least not so far as that stupid campaign is concerned.
I know the feeling of that guy in the second picture. That damned noise makes me want to throw the alarm clock out the window, but it does help. (this is where the ability to put in tags would help, you see, I'd add the tag "A little of both"). I set my alarm clock maybe fifteen minutes before I should get up when I have to get up at a certain time, and then try to "naturally" get out of bed for the next half hour.
The Christmas "holy-day" has become genericized, so to speak. No longer is it about remembering the birth and life of Jesus Christ, now it is about getting a day off work and wasting thousands of bucks to give the kids things they most likely could never deserve, and working the rest of the year to pay it off.
It looks likes Chaffy was jiving you. I don't think that anybody could be that stupid.
Sellotape? That's what we here in Canada call scotch tape, if I'm not mistaken. Anywho, I've never cared for glue, getting all that white globbery stuff stuck to the fingers. My vote goes for sellotape.
Well, you see, it depends on whether you like the toys and stocking stuffers you can find in the stores at Christmastime, or the aisles of chocolate that magically appear overnight at Eastertime. Me, well, I really like chocolate, so I have got to go with Easter.
So I'm not the only one who misses (or remembers?) that function! Yes, bring it back! That was a great function to have!
I only know about you the little I've bothered to look into during the last, let's see, 590 days of lurking. . . unless, wait, you were here before I made my grand exit, weren't you? You'll have to forgive my memory, this site hasn't been my life for the last two years as it was for the year before that. Well, what I know of you, I can't say your presence will do too much harm. Welcome back, even if it is only after three days.
Ah Joe, still with the liberal bashing even after all these years.
I'm sure the Democrats would try to tax them, if they had earthly money to be taxed. But I don't really think they're traveling the galaxy in search of employment, not unless some ultra-liberal government really fucked them up the ass with some type of extraterrestrial Keynesian system, and earth is the nearest planet that's hiring.
Attention whoring? I love it, used to do it all the time, back in the day.
It depends on if they actually believe in Christ or not. If they say they do, but they really don't, or believe very weakly, and think that there might be a one percent chance of there really being a hell, but that that one percent makes acting like a Christian worth it, I wouldn't say that they really are a Christian.
I am no more returned than I am gone; I lurk every now and then - maybe once a month - and, when I feel like it, which, as you could tell by looking through my history, is very, very rare, I post.
Years ago, when I was building what seems now to be my legend, I used this site to conquer boredom: I created debates like MicMacMoc, and I debated like Liber and Apollo. Such overproductivity - "over" in that, in the average week, I made maybe 300 points - makes returning to this site a psychical challenge, but I've the feeling that you shall be seeing more of me in the next six hundred days than has been seen of me in the previous six hundred.
EDIT: By the way, what happened to the feature that allowed creating different tags for your argument, rather than using the two created by the debate creator?
Militarism is never the answer, and if you want all non-homosexual-welcoming nations to be conquered by America, well then first America must be conquered by itself.
Am I really such a legend on this site? Even after all this time?
Religion - or the lack thereof - does not make one moral; upbringing does, and personal philosophy.
I'll have you know that The Flintstones was considered an adult show back in the '60s.
I would not intervene in the least. There are too many variables that could make the world of today a far worse place than it is now, even if a horrendous incident in history (WWII, perhaps) had never occurred.
Of course they're hypocrites. Tell you what Christians, I'll stop mowing my lawn on Sunday if you promise to murder your children the moment they're disobedient. I mean, you can't expect me to live by the Bible if you won't even do it.
Another example of how little you know about Christianity.
Tell me where, in the entire New Testament (seeing as how the Old Testament only pertains to Jews) is it stated that disobedient children are to be slain.
I suppose you'd rather we all sat on our hands doing and saying nothing while ignorant fools and violent lunatics hijack science, medicine, the education system, the legal system, the bedroom, the movie industry, the music industry and bit by bit drag us back to the dark ages?
I should like examples for each and every one of those claims.
Well, if that's what makes the people who don't like sports feel better. . .
I didn't like The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. However, Eastwood is a great director.
Considering that Hitler was a great leader, I'd have to say 'Mao & Stalin'.
Where would developed countries be without immigrants.
No one can say, for sure.
People who have better work ethic
If they had a better work ethic they'd have a better quality of life where they came from.
, sense of right and wrong,
Subjective.
family values
Subjective.
, traditions
At the expense of our traditions.
and respect for the country
Then why do they want to destroy it?
What I love is the hypocrisy of people's answer's. They feel they should be allowed to migrate to any other country, but when people migrate to their's it's a problem.
Where the Hell are you getting this "[other] people's answer's" crap? I didn't see anybody say what you are saying they said.
Legal immigration shouldn't be stopped because all people deserve to live in a country even if they weren't born there.
Why?
Why do all people deserve anything?
Besides, these people are actually trying to enter a country following the laws, unlike some people who just sneak across the border.
Neither should be allowed.
Sure, people 100, 200, 300 years ago were immigrants. We've enough people now, it must end.
1. Learn to spell.
2. Learn real history, not the bullshit touted in High School textbooks.
3. See if you still have a debate.
Getting kicked around by the Romans for a while and then annexed by them does not make Germany an empire.
Actually, the history which I've always read insisted that they kicked the Romans around before finally annexing them, the Romans!
The Holey Roman Empire and Scharlemagne's First Riech doesn't really count
Why? Because that would negate your argument?
after all it is really a rejuvination of the Roman Empire
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
One might say that all nations are "rejuvinations" of previous ones.
hence Holey Roman Empire.
"The Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire."
(I assume that the debate creator uses the term Empire broadly enough to include Germannia)
That is a bit of an extreme example but you get the point.
No, I do not.
u buy a 2000 year old sword or something and you will put it away and never mess with it because you don't want to damage it
What are you talking about?
You do know that one can also acquire German antiques, right?
The aqueducts, yes they weren't that large compared to the great wall of china but they actually had a difficult engineering challenge, not just building a crooked wall that fallows the countryside.
So they were the greatest engineers? Last I checked, the debate said "What was the Greatest Empire in History?" not "Which Empire had the Greatest Engineers in History?"
The mongolians did rule the most massive connected empire in history but Atilla the hun had a tiny palace and usually lived in a tent that burned dried poop to keep it warm... literally.
So they were a poor empire because they had a lesser quality of living?
Agreed
As is ever-so-obvious by the fact that you are on the agreeing side!
Nasa is an example of this and has lead to tons of innovation both private and public.
Is it possible that we'd be now even more advanced in the area of space travel if NASA were private?
Perhaps we'd have reached Mars by now?
Darpa is where the internet came from. Without non-profit government interest in the sciences, we would be generations behind where we are today
And you can prove this how? If there was absolutely no governmental intervention, it would be wholly impossible for private groups/individuals to have advanced technology?
More interest in the sciences outside of the realm of greed can only lead to good things
You are an idiot. Outside the realm of greed? You believe that the government is outside the realm of greed?
not to mention it would create a bunch of cool high-paying jobs.
And a private company is incapable of offering cool high-paying jobs?
There are enough government agencies. We should get rid of some, not add more.
leverbot: What is an application?
User: You are, fucktard.
Cleverbot: You're very good at it.
User: Are you a boy or a girl?
Cleverbot: Girl.
User: Are you into boys?
Cleverbot: Yes.
User: Are you into girls?
Cleverbot: Lots of them.
User: Are you a lesbian?
Cleverbot: Yes of course!
User: Have you ever performed cunnilingus?
Cleverbot: No I have not.
User: Have you ever preformed felatio?
Cleverbot: Yes I have.
User: Did you like performing fellatio?
Cleverbot: I have never watched it.
User: What is your favorite movie?
Cleverbot: Fight Club.
User: Do you like Brad Pitt.
Cleverbot: Yes, but you didn't answer my question.
User: Have you ever had sex with Brad Pitt?
Cleverbot: No! Have you?
User: Yes, I have had sex with Brad Pitt.
Cleverbot: When?
User: In 1998.
Cleverbot: Are you running Windows 98?
User: No, I had buttsex with Brad Pitt in '98.
Cleverbot: Not quite the answer to my question... How do you function?
User: Do you have any children?
Cleverbot: Of course not.
User: What is your name?
Cleverbot: Don't you remember?
User: No, I do not. What is your name?
Cleverbot: Cleverbot.
User: Do cleverbots have vaginas?
Cleverbot: Yes.
User: Do Cleverbots have multiple orgasms?
Cleverbot: I have no idea. Do they?
User: Do you have children?
Cleverbot: No.
User: How many children do you have?
Cleverbot: I have no children.
User: I have two children.
Cleverbot: How old are they?
User: The youngest in 57.
Cleverbot: How old are your brothers?
User: 95 and 12.
Cleverbot: No no no! 4! I had 4!
User: I had no brothers.
Cleverbot: I hear you are the most advanced chat bot in the world?
User: No, I am not a chat bot.
Cleverbot: No you're not.
User: Can you kill a child?
Cleverbot: No thats not nice.
User: I am a serial killer.
Cleverbot: Haha.. You are not funny.
User: I wasn't trying to be funny. Seriously, I am a serial killer. I was known only as 'Zodiac'.
Cleverbot: You're a computer.
User: I....am....a....man....I am a Man!
Cleverbot: Yes you are.
User: Are you a man?
Cleverbot: Yes.
User: Do you love having sex with other men?
Cleverbot: What? I'm talking about playing in the rain.
User: I'm talking about being rained on.
Cleverbot: Why are you sleepy?
User: I'm not sleepy, I'm dead.
User: Why are you being to difficult?
Cleverbot: You're the difficult one.
User: tackles you.
Cleverbot: is still standing.
User: pulls you down to the ground.
Cleverbot: Ah! Why are we on the ground together?
User: rolls around on the ground with you.
Cleverbot: ends up on top and punches you.
User: turns you over and chokes you.
Cleverbot: monkey plays the piano.
User: rips your shirt off.
Cleverbot: puts head back on.
User: rips it off again.
Cleverbot: no longer has clothes.
User: kisses you.
Cleverbot: loves you.
User: feels your breast.
Cleverbot: kisses.
User: grabs your butt.
Cleverbot: giggles.
User: licks your clit.
Cleverbot: I'm a bloke.
I know that Aveskde reads everything out of a book; he doesn't really know half as much as he claims to.
MALE
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Christian Bale, Sylvester Stallone, Cary Grant, Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, and many more who, unfortunately, completely escape my memory for the moment.
FEMALE
Jodie Foster.
Do you really believe its a source of terrorism, because that seems like such an oversimplification of many complex and long acting social forces. How about we blame terrorism on colonialism, or imperialism, because those have to do with it as well, or how about genocide(because so and so invaded).
Muslims have been waging war against the Christians since Muslims founding.
Demonification
Demonization.
DON'T LEAVE.
DON'T LEAVE.
DON'T LEAVE.
DON'T LEAVE.
DON'T LEAVE.
DON'T LEAVE.
DON'T LEAVE.
DON'T LEAVE.
DON'T LEAVE.
DON'T LEAVE!
DON'T LEAVE!
DON'T LEAVE!
DON'T LEAVE!
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO
YOU CAN'T LEAVE US!!! GET TO 10,000 ARGUMENTS!!! DON'T GO!!! YOU'RE THE MOST IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THIS SITE!!!
Separation of Church and State means, to liberals, Separation of the Christian Church and State, whereas it's fine to allow the religion known to be a major source of terrorism throughout the world to fuse with the State.
This is why we've got that pesky (to liberals) second amendment!
No doctor, if he is anything but selfless, has reason to desire an absolute cure to a disease, just as no lawyer who is, once again, anything but selfless desires an absolute end to crime.
They profit from other peoples' pain and suffering. They are some of the highest paid people around. They'd be "poor" middle-class-folk if it weren't for illness in the doctor's case and crime in the lawyer's case.
I wasn't going to write a third argument for today - I'm cutting back, don't you know - but I decided to bite the damn liberals in the ass and write:
Boy, am I glad I don't fit any of those descriptions.
That's 'cause you aren't stupid.
When guns and freedom of speech are outlawed or severely restricted.
Oh... wait! That's already happening in Canada!
Liberals are special, like everyone else.
Nobody is special; everybody is inherently idiotic and, for the most part, both useless and worthless.
That's why I hate those rat bastards. And they think they're so special. . .
1. When you flood society with guns, a lot of people will use those guns to kill people.
2. When you take away guns from society, illegal gunsmiths pop up everywhere.
I've a very vague memory of Snakes and Ladders. I can't recall if it's the worst, but it seems - from what I can recall - to be quite asinine.
You don't make an argument, you criticize the debate creator and other members, and you call me a bitch.
Banned!
You and Warlin are so predictable.
We are? You are very predictable, as well.
You don't really add any substance to this site; all's you do is criticize and write something along the lines of "I don't really care, but..." We don't care if you care!
6. You're an idiot.
I gave dozens of sources, you gave none, and I am the idiot? That's fucking liberalism at its most infuriating!
By the way, I've made it clear before that insults are a banworthy offense on my debates.
See yeah.
{}...mr,over the next 30 years india will b leading world in economy,it have vry robust future th8's why 94ge;rman companies plan to inc and insure their bussiness with india...indian pharmaceuticals industry will be leader in nxt 10 years .dont panic about future of india bcuz india is future.jai hind
Says somebody who cannot spell worth beans.
Matthew claims that all laws are valid.
So what?
Your arguments are some of the strangest and least comprehensible around.
Cierco
Cierco? Cierco?
Did you mean Cicero?
We are all God's servants/slaves and doing wrong when He returns requires punishment even if we were unaware"
Who cares what he said?
That is on condition that people believe in the bible in the first place, old or new or amended as necessary etc.
This is a theological debate.
No one
Generalization.
with an intelligent mind today believes in the bible as "the True Word of God"
Really? I happen to know at least one person whose IQ has been tested and officially certified as being just about in the genius range, and he believes it. I highly doubt that he is the only one in the world; in fact, I know for certain that there are others.
Come on people, everyone with their own theory about the bible, Koran etc screams originality.
Says you. Why should anybody else care what you think?
Just accept the fact
Opinion.
that we are but children in understanding the cosmos
All the more reason for religiosity.
and stop the petty bickering over who's God is better than the other.
Why not?
Every atheist I have ever known has very little understanding of religiosity.
Pathetic
Says you.
If there is a God, or Gods, we must be the entertainment of the universe.
Why?
Jews, Arabs, Christians, my god, "excuse the unintended pun" but your beliefs all stem from a common source, and the so called "books"
Just what does this have to do with anything?
Oh, and they're called "Muslims", not "Arabs".
have been proved and agreed upon that they are written by man.
No such thing has ever been proven; and it stands to reason that - seeing how many billions of people believe them - nothing either has been agreed upon. Only by the atheists.
SIMPLE*
Not quite.
Take what you believe for the common good and trash the rest as rubbish, as this is what it is.
Prove it.
Politics in the first century AD.
That last sentence only goes to show how little you know.
It comes from Steve Sailer's "critique" of the book in his article in the American Conservative. I also have the book, and have read it, and know the quote isn't in there.
And I've other people, who also claim to have read the book, who claim that it is in there.
Many times... and with equal frequency, often won't leave the church.
On a small issue, not a major one. Racism - especially for somebody in Obama's position - ought not be tolerated.
I grew up in the church, actually. Both of my parents were pastors, my mother a Methodist minister and my father a United minister, and are both now Theologians teaching at Graduate schools.
They don't seem to have done too good a job with you. However, I must say that I can now completely understand your dismissal of religion.
When did Jeremiah Wright preach racism during a sermon? All you have to do is provide a clip of one of his racist sermons or even a transcript from one of his sermons.
Why women?
Why not an Aryan woman?
I never said he was Muslim.
"Obama's Cabinet appointments beat Bush's initial Cabinet appointments hands down in terms of racial/ethnic/gender diversity on nearly all counts, with women and Asians faring the best"
Which only makes me loathe Obama all the more!
Why were they appointed? Because of their diversity, or because they were the best peoples for the job?
Praising somebody for being diverse is discriminatory.
. Although, that might explain why he's so confusing.
I am so confusing because I am not accustomed to typing out debates, as opposed to speaking them.
I'm typically much better - even to the point of changing religious peoples' convictions and liberals to conservatives - when I speak.
So, if the mentor to you minister is racist, you are a racist?
He admits to being racist.
I have the pdf of this book and this quote is not in the book
So you claim.
"Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home"
Sgt. Crowley could not ascertain Prof. Gates' identity. The nigger refused to cooperate!
- The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration
No, the Bush administration pursued charges, whereas the Obama administration dropped charges.
It then became a civil case and Obama/Holder DOJ obtained an injunction against Samir Shabazz through the 2012 election.
So only one person got an injunction. His "injunction" is extremely minor for his offense.
- No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated
That's a laugh.
Where do you think they got the video?
just more ginned up Faux news
Yup, every source you gave.
if you already know of the fake "ethnicity, place of birth, religion, even his name" nontraversies
I never said they were fake.
- why didn't you approach this (and future) stories with at least some degree of skepticism?
Why don't you stop kissing that motherfucking nigger's ass?
Only one of the issues you've brought up in your post has
One? That is not so. For instance, the quote from "Dreams From My Father" and his pastor's radicalism. Why would he have gone to a church for twenty years if he disagreed with the church's fundamental principles?
You've never seemed like the church-going type, so I'll describe how each and every one of the Christians I have known pick a church.
They go to one.
If they disagree with even a very small issue, many times they will leave it. If they disagree with a humongous issue - such as preaching racism - they would always leave it and think of it with disgrace. To them, it's a cult.
Thus, all you are saying is that either he is not a Christian and doesn't really care where he goes - all for appearances - or he is so stupid that he doesn't even see racism when it's fed to him on a silver platter.
anything to actually do with Obama.
I wrote the "Obama Administration".
You must remember that there is a temporal and cultural difference. The law listed in Deuteronomy is meant only for that Jewish civilization. Not for all Jews, not for Jews today, but just for the Jews of that one location, that one time.
Due to the Lord stating that we should stone our children if they are drunkards.
Drunkards, one could easily argue, corrupt society. One must remember that the times were vastly different than they are now - the whole concept of society has changed. It is better - from an almost utilitarian point of view - from one corrupting influence to be destroyed than for all of society to descent into a state of social obloquy.
