I agree entirely, especially before the whites become the minority.
(p.s. Being a Canadian, I can potentially be arrested and charged with "hate speech" for the above argument)
(p.p.s. Fuck Canada)
Yes, she could be even worse than Bush, or she could be better that Reagan. We don't know, and we won't unless we give her a change - something which I am not even prepared to do.
The old testament is still the Bible. Christians obey the 10 commandments, do they not?
No.
If you knew anything about Christianity you'd know that the New Testament offers two commandments which replace the Decalogue: Love God, and Love your neighbor.
According to the other guy, we're all his slaves, and disobeying him seems to require eternal damnation.
What "other guy"?
You are eternally vexing.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
I'm giddy just thinking about it.
You should be.
However, be giddy no more! It is here!
Aw shucks. You caught me.
If only I could be sure that you were being serious. . .
The last several years have seen a great deal of debate over Obama - his ethnicity, place of birth, religion, even his name - however, the second somebody screams "racist", everybody seems to stop.
However, is it even remotely possible, that Obama is the racist?
Obama's minister, the ultra-prejudiced Jeremiah Wright has made his beliefs regarding Black Power all-to-clear. Reverend Wright's mentor, James Cone, also made what one could call "violently racist" speeches and writings, such as that listed in the following excerpt:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
Obama himself, in his book 'Dreams from my Father', wrote:
“I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.”
Skip ahead to the "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy", regarding which Obama stated that the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly" in arresting the black Prof. Gates. Sgt. Crowley, the arresting officer, who also teaches a couse on racial profiling, maintained that he "acted appropriately."
A neighbor had called the police upon seeing two men apparently attempting to break into Prof. Gates' house. In the police report, Sgt. Crowley wrote that Gates, who had only then managed to force open the door, responded with "Why, because I'm a black man in America?" when asked for identification.
So, where is Obama's racism in all of that? The part where Obama announced that the Cambridge police [officer] "acted stupidly". What is so racist about that? Obama immediately assumed that, without even having any proof or complete knowledge of the situation, the white officer acted "stupidly" in arresting black Gates.
It may now be time to define "racism". There are many who would have you believe that only a white person can be racist (!!!), however, lexicographically, that is a blatant lie. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is defined as "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race , especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"
Now, onto another case:
The New Black Panthers, a black-supremicist organization, have announced that black peope will have to kill "crackers and their babies" to gain liberation. Samir Shabazz, the very man who made those hate speeches, was arrested for voter intimidation by carrying a billy club and threatening white people as they attempted to vote. However, immediately before the resolution of the trial, the case was dropped.
Now Julie Fernandes, the Assisstent Attorney General Deputy, has stated that whites may "never bring a lawsuit against a black"!
Thus, I maintain my thesis that Obama, and his administration, are racists.
I could have sworn I heard something about you leaving.
News gets around fast.
Soon; I plan for Sept. 1; however, I intend to return once or twice a week.
None the less, I suppose you're still antagonizing Qymosabi.
I wasn't even thinking about him.
That is certainly a goal I can support.
A fellow white supremacist, then?
Still though, I'd like to know why one would think that the current administration is racist. Enlighten me.
My argument - long and riddled with sources - is forthcoming. I've spent the last hour googling for additional sources.
A common blunder on the part of atheists is that the radical differences between the Old and New Testaments decisively prove that the Bible is inherently mistaken. That is not so.
Why? Because the Old Testament is the book of the Jews, whereas the New Testament is that of the Christians. The Christians are not in any way bound to the restrictions given to the Jews, being that they are, unlike the Jews of old, saved via "grace" rather than lineage.
You can defend an ideology by defining bad behaviours as inerrant, but all that matters here is that the majority of people thinks that those behaviours and deeds are evil independent of whether god did them or has them.
And, so far, the majority disagree with you.
Damn! I meant to dispute!
To quote someone famous on here - "Prove it."
Not even gone yet and I'm already being quoted!
This is a theological debate and as such my primary sources are theological texts.
Getting back to reality, harsh penalties for small misdeeds actually only worsens crime. Do you know why?
It's because once a person breaks a small law, the stiff penalties invest them, so they feel like they may as well break more laws since the punishment will be the same (you can only die once). I think there was an old English saying about this that went like "In for a penny, in for a pound."
If they are killed immediately there is no time for them to further corrupt society.
Murder is a latent impulse, not a learned behaviour.
Prove it.
What do you think was the purpose of those laws?
Most people - especially foolhardy atheists - insist that accounts such as these only go to show that God was/is evil.
They know little about the background, though; and, as usual, things aren't so cut-and-dry as they think.
So, why did God have that law?
Because the Jew knew not of evil.
At the time, a purely Jewish society with no influence whatsoever of pernicious outsiders would have been without crime. Murder, thievery, rape - all of it unheard of. However, it would have taken a number of generations for this to be accomplished. If one were to commit such a crime, they would be introducing criminality to a crime-free society. The only way to prevent it. You guessed it - cut it off at the source (i.e. kill the criminal). This may seem quite tough, but one must remember that, had it succeeded, the Jews would have had a completely crime-free society. Murder would be unheard of - it would not be an option because the next generations would not even realize that such an action is possible. Such an option would be outside the scope of a regular man's knowledge and experience.
I watched about two seconds and knew that it was destined to cause nightmares.
The quasianarchofascist side.
Why? Because that's my side, of course.
No, they are not Nazis.
I should know. Most of my family are or were Nazis.
I know virtually nothing about either Emo or Goth; however, you know who I really hate? Hippies!!
Fucking liberals!
I don't care what people you make up think.
You are only making yourself look like a fool.
Why not, rather than claim that I am lying, ask for proof? I could easily give you links to prove my claims.
You've contradicted yourself repeatedly
Possible reasons:
1. I am a user under the control of one or more individuals.
2. Forgetfulness.
3. Disinterest.
4. Altered opinion.
5. Devil's Advocate.
and have no problem being duplicitous.
I've never knowingly lied. Whilst I am far too lazy to bother to double-check my typing or diction, phraseology is something which I know from experience that I have mastered.
"My plan to make everyone think that I am young has succeeded!"
I was mocking you.
Which is an obvious ploy to make me think you're older when you're a kid.
I don't care what you think. I am only participating in this ridiculous debate to see how you respond.
A typical teenaged or inexperienced person's response.
Or a response from somebody with a broad range of experiences with peoples of many, many different personalities - each with their own individual reasons for their actions?
If you were experienced and knew how to read people, you'd know that it involves more than finding a mould, but also reading into what a person is saying, the pretext behind which gives a glimpse of their motivations and what kind of person they are.
Or I've come to realize that there are many people who do not fit any such mold?
It's easy to learn a lot from you simply by what you don't write about, or omit in casual dialog.
Such as?
Which makes you look young.
In what way?
The responses on this debate alone sufficiently reveal this. An older person doesn't pat themselves on the back when many forum-goers or people on this website think he's old.
I don't care what they think, I'm simply "rubbing your nose into it".
I've known people like this and they are still different from you.
All that you are saying is that, because I am different from the regular people you know, I must be a teenager attempting faultily to act like an adult. Perhaps I am different from the people you know?
You claim to live in rural America, I claim to live in urban Canada; you claim to have a wide range of associates, I claim to be semi-reclusive and to only act with a select few relatives. .
They are not as insecure as you are
I've been called many things - emotionless, robot - but this is the only persona which I have ever constructed in which one insisted that I was 'insecure'.
thus they don't preoccupy themselves with acting badass by entertaining audacious ideologies.
What is so "badass" about my various ideologies?
Instead they have a good command of modern language and teenage culture.
I've associated with - let's see - perhaps half a dozen teenagers in the last decade. Each of them relatives, and each of them only briefly.
I barely ever watch modern movies.
I rarely read modern books - other than Crichton and King.
I loathe modern music.
You aren't really smart enough to pull it off. I can tell by how you argue.
1. Laziness.
2. Disorganized thoughts.
3. INTJ
4. Slow typing in relation to rapidity of thoughts.
5. Lack of knowledge of target contender.
People like me and the other adults get to call you "sonny" and "boy" and "kid" which you hate.
Have I ever said that I dislike those monikers?
If you're an old man acting like a teenager, the sad truth is, if you were exposed it wouldn't reveal you as someone so amazing that could pull it off, instead it would elicit pity because you would be the type of old man who wears a backwards baseball cap. You'd be that sad old man with the mind of a teenager.
Or the sad old man who gets his kicks by going through this long "I'm-not-who-you-think-I-am" ritual?
More likely, incompetence at playing another person.
Most likely, but not definitively.
People with Alzheimer's disease and Dementia act differently than you. I should know, I've been around this for the last four years.
Yes, I know; I suppose I didn't spend enough time around her all those years ago...
This is typical for attention-seeking. It also serves as a nifty alibi.
Typical, but not conclusive.
I maintain that it is simple forgetfulness.
Again, back-patting aside, it doesn't change what I said about you.
I am not back-patting, I am providing hearsay testimony.
It's not pigheaded to distrust a duplicitous individual who fashions this all a game.
That's right; to me, this all is a game. Thus, I've no reason to tell the truth but, just for fun, what if I decided to completely tell the truth, and see where it gets me? I've been particularly candid about "myself" over the last few months, especially with you. No, not especially with you, only with you.
This whole thing may have been orchestrated!
False modesty.
Pigheadedness.
People tend to demand scientific proof for these kinds of conversations when you're spot on but they want to make your argument appear false in front of others.
I am not regular people.
Excuses excuses.
What will you consider satisfactory?
On the forums I frequent, people estimate my IQ to be greater than theirs, with the most intelligent individuals estimating higher.
I've no problem with this.
However, memory is not the equivalent of IQ. You could memorize every word you ever see - have perfect rote memory - but when it comes to spatial patterns and so on you could do poorly.
See? I can make things up too.
This argument is completely useless. I was telling the truth. Whether or not you accept that is irrelevant.
In this debate I don't care what alleged other people think.
I don't care what you think.
I've had you pegged since about a month or two of being active on this site.
Simple pigheadedness. Even if I provided what anybody else would consider satisfactory evidence in opposition of your statement, you would remain adamant about my "age".
I've known people like you, and I've always disliked them and their extreme condescension.
I don't really care. I find it amusing to watch you try and argue out of the most likely scenarios that fit you.
"Most likely scenario" does not equal "accurate scenario".
It reminds me of how Gacy used to say that he was innocent, and that he was framed as part of a massive conspiracy.
I am not claiming that there is any conspiracy. I am claiming that you may be mistaken, but are simply too obstinate to reconsider.
I was reading about estragole when I began to think about your argument for why I must be an adolescent. Interest in paranormal subjects.
Here are a number of other scenarios for why one could be interested in such a topic:
1. Loss of a loved one.
2. Believed oneself to have had a paranormal experience (i.e. ghost, poltergeist, etc.)
3. Introduced to said topic by friend/relation/etc.
4. Escaped from religious-nut parent who "held them captive", as it were, from all "ungodly" topics for decades.
5. Stumbled upon topic accidentally during the reading of a book and became interested in it..
6. Believes oneself to be dying, and wants to learn more about "after-death" phenomena.
Now that I've listed that, I'll give reasons - already having been given throughout my many thousands of arguments - why each of those may suit me:
1. I mentioned that an uncle of mine died several months ago.
2. I'm doubtless paranoid.
3. I've mentioned that my recently-divorced relative's new boyfriend is a ghost hunter.
4. I've mentioned having been raised by ultra-religious parents.
5. I've mentioned both Charles Fort and The X-Files as being an inspiration to said interest.
6. I'm a hypochondriac.
I'd pat you on the back but you already seem to have both your hands assigned to the task.
I've no interest in "patting myself - or having myself patted - on the back." I made a factual statement. Whether or not you accept it as such is irrelevant.
King of the peons. Good for you.
I'll admit that I, too, was surprised by the ages of the peoples on such sites. While they did make up a rather large minority, the number of teenagers was not nearly so great as the numbers of peoples in their twenties. Of course, thirties and beyond make for a rather small bunch, but not unheard of.
That's because you ARE a teenager
Still, no empirical proof. No scientific proof. Only your pigheaded belief that will never change, no matter the level of proof I give to the contrary. An image would not work: there's no way to prove that picture is me.
A video will not work, same reason; also the same reason that a sound recording will not work to provide adequate proof.
and not very good at hiding it, at least to adults.
In regards to the statement I made about the average ages of members of other sites - ages which I have yet to find reason to question - it was typically the older the person, the older their estimate as to my age.
One man, about 64, questioned if I was narcissistic enough to be a "baby boomer", or if I am doomed to "Generation X". Nobody dared guess I was a part of "Generation Y".
Only you.
You're a Big Kid amongst preteens.
I, too, observe people and make estimates about them. I have yet to find reason to question the age which they give; they live up to it satisfactorily.
Imagine how good a debater you'd have become if you invested all that energy into it
1."All of my energy"? I don't have that much energy left. Acid Reflux takes quite a bit out of a person. . .
1a. You've no reason to even believe my claim that I am afflicted by said condition. So, why do I even bother with you?
I don't need to prove, it's obvious to any adult, and that's good enough for me.
Adults on other sites disagree.
High school emo.
Or manic depressive?
1. I have never knowingly lied on this site.
2. You have no reason to believe me.
3. Whatever argument I give, you will claim that I am lying, inaccurate, erred, etc.
4. Thus, this debate is useless.
Which affects each of us differently, and doesn't change the fact that by that point we have already established ourselves in a career,
You don't know if I've a career and, if I do, what it is.
often have a family
I speak quite fondly of my relations; just how closely they are related is something which I have never revealed.
Also, I've known the opposite in middle-aged people too, and they don't worry about maturity either.
What is it that makes you think that I worry about maturity?
Teenagers have this problem with life experience, rather an acute lack of it. So therefore the simple fact that I can read people, even online people, better than you anticipated doesn't make sense to you.
Another faulty assumption. I can understand that one may believe that they can "read people"; however, I do not always agree with the conclusions at which you arrive.
I maintain that people have their own personal reasons for doing that which they do, and that, whilst many may "fit the mold", so to speak, some are simply unique.
That's obvious. Even for you it ought to be. You expose your level of knowledge in your writings.
I've made certain not to do such a thing.
No, you're simply not a professional yet.
I never claimed to be professional, but rather to possess greater than amateur-level knowledge in a number of topics.
Which doesn't fit with you, since you are trying to appear older.
1. You still have not yet proven that I am attempting to appear older, rather than that I am older.
2. In regards to the statement which I made to which you responded with the above bold statement: perhaps I am middle-aged attempting to act like a teenager who is acting older to convince the youngsters on whom I prey that I am a teenager.
2.1 Your response, if this were the truth, why would I reveal it? Because you wouldn't believe it, whether or not it is the truth.
2b. Perhaps I am affiliated with a group which attempts to unearth "online predators", and that is the reasoning behind my attitude.
3. Perhaps, as I questioned axmeister, I am a user manned by two or more people?
3.1 That would explain many things, such as my forgetfulness, my "ever-changing" attitude and opinions, my varying levels of knowledge, etc.
4. Perhaps I've Alzheimer's or another form of dementia? That would explain my forgetfulness, my "mixing up" of words and idioms, etc..
4.1 Have you noticed my forgetfulness? There have been many a time in which I would respond to an argument only to realize after the fact that I had written out an argument for another debate, not the one to which I was replying.
5. You believe that my writing style is indicative of "young-person-wanting-to-seem-older". I write somewhat in a similar manner in which I speak: on this site, there are obviously many youngsters. If I were to write in an identical manner as my speech, doubtless few would understand me (I've that problem when I associate with my relations who bring along their children. "What does that mean?" follows nigh every other word!).
5.1 But, as I said before, you've no reason to believe my anecdotes. I have stated that I have never knowingly lied on this site, but you've no reason to believe that. You are so pigheaded that you will most likely not even accept that minute possibility that my statement (i.e. *I have never knowingly lied on this site) is truth.
I'm still waiting for the first
PCP
[insert image of the Hulk]
It'll make you strong.
It'll make you tough.
It'll make you
THE HULK!
PCP NOW!!!
Then, in the small print, comes a huge list of dangerous side effects and whatnot.
37
This seems to be in the range of the most common estimates I've received on other sites.
Here's what I do:
1. Find an interesting website/forum.
2. Create a completely new persona for said website.
3. Remain absolutely anonymous.
4. Become ubiquitous on said website.
5. Become something of a legend on said site. Become renowned for my learning and my "debate prowess" (I was unofficially named the "debate king" of one site.)
6. Either I or somebody else makes a debate/thread inquiring as to the most curious of facts about said legend: his age.
7. People guess. I've had responses ranging from mid-twenties all the way up to 100. Thus far, aveskde is the only person to claim on such a thread that I - amidst each of my personae - am a teenager.
P.S. There's this one site on which resides a thread entitled "Compliment the person above you". Nigh each and every time in which I complimented the person above me, the person below me - who was to compliment me - wold write something along the lines of "I've been waiting for you to post in this thread! I've wanted to say this about you for a long, long time![...]"
Oh another point I thought I would add, a preoccupation with the paranormal often accompanies youth.
I agree that it often accompanies youth; however, my interests only began after finding a book about Charles Fort; indeed, it was not the paranormalism per se, but rather the rejection of science which I fancied. Upon further investigation, I learned how often science got things wrong, and, most infuriatingly, their utter rejection - rather than curiosity in - the unexplained. Science/scientists appear to hide from the very thought of anything that they themselves cannot quickly find explanation in, rather than attempt to find an explanation.
it could be an account handed down by the generations of a family
Or an account manned by more than one person?
That would explain a lot of things about "my" alternating personalities, my "forgetfulness", and more.
Is it hate? Yes.
Is it a crime? No.
The hatred itself is not the crime, but rather the acts of violence which were committed - no matter the reason.
in his case it's a way to appear older.
I will neither state that I am, or am not, a teenager; however, your statement is without proof. You cannot prove that I, assuming I am a teenager, claim to loathe teenagers to appear older.
I loathe nigh all people.
If he is concerned about maturity but doesn't divulge his age
How old are you?
Also note a number of topics and comments he has made that deal with finding one's self or having uncertainty about who one is.
Such as?
These are juvenile concerns, a middle-aged person has already found himself.
Three words: mid, life, and crisis.
You cannot prove that all middle-ages humans have "already found [themselves]".
Next, note his knowledge.
How can one accurately measure one's knowledge via online discourse?
He has an amateur level of knowledge of a variety of topics, which is suggestive of being younger than your mid-twenties.
Or I do not speak of that which I know well? I debate frequently IRL (is that the right slang term?) about various topics, mostly history.
The "Kicker" is his admitted interest in acting like different age groups. Teenagers tend to do this.
Funny, I've heard of a Hell of a lot of middle-aged men acting like teenagers online.
I've known people
You know people? I'd have never thought. . .
I've never been of the belief that one sinks to another's level by employing similar tactics.
I am not "trolling". I am creating an anti-nigger debate as retaliation for each and every one of Qymosabi's anti-cracker debates.
Russell Peters is a master at making fun of these people.
I agree with the statement in the debate; however, not the "vice versa" clause in the debate overview.
Fetus = Innocent
Murderer = Guilty
Guilty = Death
Innocent ≠ Death
I think that you wrote:
"I am too sexy for your love"
I have absolutely no idea how I figured that out!
I would be most afraid of immortality.
My thoughts precisely in regards to an afterlife; hence my hatred of the generalization that all people have emotional reasons for religiosity.
Living so long that the universe dies around you
Immortality to what extent?
If you were blown into many thousands of pieces - your brain divided into virtual nothingness - what would be left to remain alive?
Imagine immortality through reincarnation. Every time you die you are forced to be born again, suffer through a childhood, you may be beaten or sexually abused in some lifetimes, you may be a murderer in others. There are countless times that you will suffer torture, as well as violent and painful deaths. Imagine being born only to die as a child, of neglect, starvation, or drowning. This will all happen to you, it's guaranteed in reincarnation as a matter of probability.
Yet, as I recall, people very rarely have memories of "past lives". It would make no difference to me if a past life went through that, I'd have no such recollections.
[admin:]
"window\"
I have tried twice now to remove the "\" from the end of the word "window\". I have, as is quite obvious, failed.
If the point is that it's ok to needlessly subject children to cancer-causing agents because there are more important things than protecting children from unfit parents, then you're right, I missed it.
There are more so great a number of mutagens that simply discriminating against second-hand smoke is superfluous.
Smoking within the vicinity of a child does not necessarily make one an "unfit parent", nor does not smoking within the vicinity of a child make one a "fit parent".
Neither of the links provided by you or PrayerFails would open.
Perhaps you've just got a bad computer? It works perfectly on mine.
I would suggest you don't use poorly-hosted websites as a source for health-related information.
Provide sufficient evidence that the websites given within the confines of previous arguments by either TERMIANTOR and/or PrayerFails were "poorly-hosted".
You'll find that the US Department of Health and Human Services has a functional website with information pertaining to second hand smoke and its effects on children.
Yet you cannot even provide me with a link!
I like it. However, the rare times I drink pop (Canadian slang for the American "soda"), I opt for Canada Dry or Mountain Dew.
I will never stop referring to niggers as "niggers", fagots as "fagots", retards as "retards", and so on.
Yes they should, these words should be used in a positive way.
Why?
Ever notice that every car driven by a person who smokes in it regularly smells like cigarettes? I guess 100% of the smoke doesn't magically escape through an open window...who would have thought?
I've been in such cars, but I distinctly remember a lack of such a smell.
Also, children can sit beside an opened window and breathe the fresh air which comes through the open window.
I'm not qualified to do so, but why would I need to when those who are already have?
They haven't!
Nothing if you're a stupid douche that doesn't care about children.
Why would I worry about children being affected by virtual nothingness?
As horrible an actress as she may be, Kristen Stewart is the only worthy cast-member.
I am not currently aware of a single good Hollywood role model. Mel Gibson comes pretty damn close, but not completely.
"It behooves every man who values the liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others.
I think intentionally subjecting a child
Who said anything about a child?
trapped in a car
There's this new invention, you may have heard of it; they call it the "window\".
to cancer-causing agents is absurd.
1. Prove second-hand cigarette smoke causes cancer.
2. What is so absurd about it?
A person who selfishly risks the life of a child for their own gratification is wretched
1. Who said anything about a child?
2. It has yet to be proven that second-hand smoke causes cancer.
but nothing is as vile or worthless as a pedophile.
Why, Damien, prey tell, is a murderer held in higher regard than a pedophile? How can a person who takes the life of another - whether it be that of an adult or child - possibly not be worse than a person who molests a child?
Have you seen the outpouring of debate topics about underwear, twilight, pop stars and movies? Those are teen debates, and they verge on spam.
The nude debates verge on spam? They are spam.
The Bilderberg Group is a league of wealthy families in control of the world.
I know I'll get Hell for this from AndSoccer16 or Aveskde, so I'll say it now: it is only a conspiracy theory. Read about it yourself and you can decide if they truly are who I say they are.
He's a dumb ass atheist!
Addendum:
He's a dumb ass atheist/liberal.
Empirical or observational evidence never proves anything strictly speaking.
Naught is evidence enough for a fallibilist.
I simply was refuting your claim that there is equal weight for aliens and nephilim
'Twas simply a rhetorical statement.
We are proof that alien life can and should exist in the universe. If we can exist then there is no reason that there ought not be a billion earths out there in the cosmos separated by great distances and eras in time.
Yet that does not decisively prove that there is a one.
You are arguing not from empiricism, but from probabilism.
Invest it into a company. If it works, I could turn that 15 mil into 15 bil.
That'd have to be one pretty damn successful company.
What would I do with $15m? I'd finance a few horror films.
I don't need money, but I love a good movie. Horrors can be produced cheaply and can make a huge profit.
Many people claim that addiction can lead to many things
Such as?
whilst many people
Who?
say that there is no such thing as addiction
I know some very strange people, yet none of them make that claim.
since everybody uses according to what they feel is right
No, they use what their body needs after having built up a certain level of tolerance.
and to make them comfortable.
Only to be extremely uncomfortable afterwards.
Guys
Discrimination
post your thoughts on this topic.
No.
t's eight fucking blocks away.
Eight blocks? Where the fuck did you get that number?
It's two blocks away.
Except for life on Earth...*
Which means?
Are you implying that human life originated outside of Earth?
...and then doom the entire planet in the process. Smart idea.
Nukes have been dropped before. Besides, I'm still not convinced that the human race deserves life.
do you understand what mecca is.
Yes, I do.
its is a sacred place built to worship god
Wrong, it is a city which existed before Islam and Mohammed.
how would you feel if someone flew a plane into your church?
I don't go to church.
maybe some of you should stop listening to what cnn
I don't watch CNN.
and the government say about islam
If you bothered to find out who I am rather than judge me, you'd see that I am a conspiratologist and very paranoid. In a nutshell: I do not trust government.
nd actually do some research.
I have.
not only would you find that not one muslim body was found in the reckage of 911 but also that george bush was one of the largest contributers to 911.
You know what, I've never had complete belief in this conspiracy theory. I've argued for it, but I'm still not totally convinced.
there is also proof
Evidence, not proof.
that the bush and bin-laden families have been friends dating back to when bush senior was in office.
Funny, throughout all of my readings, I've never found this one.
and bush jr had lunch with the bin-laden family the day before 911.
No evidence.
did u ever stop and think huh?
Yes, I do think. Obviously far more than do you.
what did both bush junior and senior do while in office.
Acting like idiots?
create wars in some part of the midlle east.
So?
huh wonder why well it could be the fact that the bush family is sitting on one of the biggest oil fortunes in the u.s.
Why not go back to the roots of the "Oil Conspiracy"? We used to use hemp oil, and we were much better off.
Either you are joking or you've the most diluted version of natural history I've ever heard. I should imagine the former but, knowing the types of people on here, one never knows.
Even after your translation (thank you) it is still patently nonsense.
Obviously.
Abiogenesis, evolution and nebula hypothesis allow for the possibility of countless alien civilisations. However because we are limited to subluminal velocities we'll never see them.
There is absolutely no more empirical proof that aliens exist than that the Nephilim exist.
this is it this is the biggest drawback of our country, bad language.
India is nothing compared to North America.
what do you think? that this will make the other debators feel inferior to you??
Probably.
are you kidding me???
No, he is kidding himself.
so what in the old times this was a common thing.
All throughout Europe.
and we should also be ashamed that India couldn't fight for itself.
Which only goes to prove their inferiority.
Well..., maybe we should go bomb your country ;)
Sure, why not?
Let's nuke Mecca first, though.
I speak the language of the country that is going 2 lead the world within 20 years. I am glad...
Prove it.
.........u wanna destroy us....then wat u thnk we 'd leave you.....yh u r right th8 v r threat to u....bt nt cz of bad language bt bcoz of our day by day improvement...n progress...... U accepted our superiority on u....
You want to destroy us. What would we leave for you to exploit? Nothing! Yes! You are right that we are a threat to you, but not because of bad language, but because of our day by day improvement in progress. You accepted our superiority on you.
*(I even amazed myself with that translation!)
pls, take a india lead mndjkhiufhm cdjhciudshjsnajdhsyudgiwieowskcnjcneghu
That got upvoted?
A monkey must have been playing with the mouse.
The world can lead itself... No need for someone to do this task!!!
1. You are on the wrong side of the debate.
2. I would agree if and only if you are proposing anarchy.
india is bound by water on 3 sides, some thing which most other nations do not have. this is a big advantage for india
Britain is bound by water on all sides, something which most other nations do not have. This is a big advantage for Britain.
=======================================
Japan is bound by water on all sides, something which most other nations do not have. This is a big advantage for Japan.
=======================================
Iceland is bound by water on all sides, something which most other nations do not have. This is a big advantage for Iceland.
=======================================
Canada is bound by water on three sides, something which most other nations do not have. This is a big advantage for Canada.
YA...................U R RIGHT............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I M AGREE WID U..........
*
This post is stupid so that it does not even warrant my loss of a point to down-vote you.
i think that India has the potential to lead the world because it developing day by day.... and what i feel is that if India has lead the country so far then it can do more....
India is developing day by day.
So is every other country.
indian culture,,and languages are established 2000yrs ago where other countries are finding there languags
What you are saying: "It's been two thousand years, yet they still aren't world leaders."
India is in my personal list of countries to keep an eye on over the next thirty years.
India is in my personal list of countries to ignore over the next thirty years.
I think they're a good contender for superpower status before the end of this century.
I think they're a good contender for bankruptcy status before the end of this century.
Who is "They"?
If you mean the Bilderberg Group, then I must advise you that it shall never happen.
To be civilized is to be cultured.
To be most civilized is to have works of literature, art, music far grander than that of the others.
Also, to have reached a state of conditions beyond impoverishment.
Assuming that "civilized" is the direct opposite of "barbarian", then to be "civilized" means to be either Greek or Roman.
Yes, I do. I am the only person - liberals included - that I know who is of this view.
If they are not allowed to build a mosque wheresoever they want, then the precedent is set for all other future first amendment (or, perhaps, more specifically, Freedom of Religion) cases.
We should fly a plane into the center of Mecca!
Under regular conditions I'd recommend nuking them, but. . .
Never mind that our Constitution protects every religion, including Muslims.
Joe did not state that the government ought to destroy the building, but rather private individuals. Obviously they'd be breaking the law, but so did those who destroyed the World Trade Centers.
I opined that flying a plane into that god-forsaken building would be more. . . poetic.
There actually is no danger in the occult, besides believing in it...
Yes, there is.
Look throughout history; anybody found guilty of having forbidden knowledge was killed.
That dumbass can't even be trusted to run a lawnmower, much less a country.
That word is literally like the most overused word that there is, literally.
That dumbass can't be trusted to run a lawnmower, much less a country.
I like other cultures - from their own locations. I like my own just fine.
Enough people have dogs and cats. A turtle or a monkey or a python can add diversity to the "pet kingdom".
Granted, fish was a little vague, but owing a shark is a little exorbitant whereas owning a gold fish is not.
I always wanted a python.
There's your problem.
I misread this.
There is your problem.
There is your problem
I assume you are telling me that my problem is that I get them off of the web and that, if I knew where to find them, I could get real ones. Correct?
There's your problem.
No, it is not. Unless you can give me a source.
You need to learn how to better find illicit and taboo documents
I've asked a hacker friend of mine.
Not that I'm going to tell you how.
Why not? I am always interested in expanding my knowledge.
