Dabawss

disregards this poll because it's obvious bias in favor of the failed capitalist system

11 minutes ago, SirPotatoes said:

I think it's pretty cruel to bury survivors

 

 

 

Answer: You wouldn't bury the survivors anywhere because they have survived

link your nation plox

I see more and more people trying to stay in the "olden times" (those time periods vary depending on how "old" you actually are lol)... so I have created a poll to see if I am right or if I am just deluded lol

they say an eye for an eye... the death penalty should be for murder cases only, governed by the state. the problem is - with the death penalty is that :

[1] - there are many who have sat on death row for years wrongfully accused years if not decades later

[2] - there IS a case that the current "administration" of the death penalty is in itself cruel and unusual punishment. when a person sits on death row for over 10 years, it ceases to be the death penalty but cruel and unusual punishment in the wait one has to endure to get the conviction processed and completed

here is a fact... until such a time when the courts can with 100% certainty, convict the right person for the right crime.... no "final" or un-doable sentence should ever be handed out

what do some people think when they do this to themselves?

put whatever fancy name you want on it, land theft is land theft

just a few random memes

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

The US has killed more than 20 million people in 37 countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

List of US war crimes

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/08/35_countries_the_u_s_has_backed_international_crime_partner/

List of US backed coups of legal governments in other countries, in some backing fascists, drug lords and terrorists

10 minutes ago, Robert E Lee said:

You could, but have yet to provide substantial evidence to back anything you ever say up, lol.

once again, the same could be said of you. i have provided the premise of my assertions, if you disagree with them then provide proof they are wrong.... once again, back to the OP's original topic. I refuse to discuss this further in another person;'s unrelated thread.

1 minute ago, Robert E Lee said:

Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean it's not true.

I could say the same thing to you anyhow, let's not hijack this thread any further away from the OP's topic

you have yet to post anything that shows different.

2 minutes ago, Robert E Lee said:

Which is localized to the Middle East.

nope. the US has hostile actions in the middle east, in Somalia, in Europe where they are leading the build up of aggressive and hostile forces on the Russian border, in China where they are aggressively inserting themselves into Asian politics, need i continue?

2 minutes ago, Robert E Lee said:

Define short term, since you said The Holocaust was short term, but it led to the state of Israel. Which can be said is one of the reasons this is happening with Iraq.

the holocaust lasted 12 years... the current US reign ofg terror has already been going on for 16 years and is still gaining strength

2 minutes ago, Robert E Lee said:

Genghis Khan.

Localized. The US is like Genghis Khan on steroids released on the whole globe

People often look at some of the horrors of the past committed by people and governments and ask how could that happen... we would never allow such things in modern civilized society but they are so blind in their own apathy as they dont see atrocities like those and much worse happening under their watch and they do nothing

once again, short term ... when you look at the scope of current and recent US atrocities worldwide, there can be no question it is incomparible with anything else in history

Just now, Robert E Lee said:

The Holocaust.

that's a lot less people over a shorter period of time, ANT is over,m the current reign of terror by the US is still going strong and wlll be for at least another decade unless someone nukes the US

7 minutes ago, Robert E Lee said:

 

I wouldn't say THE darkest moments in human history.

Can you name any other period of time when so many were so hurt for so long under false pretenses in human history?

ok theres a lot of brown stuff that hit the fan over the years based on the false premise of the government cover story of what happened on 9/11.  That said and sticking to the topic of the post (because i could go on and on for hours about 9/11 inspired actions ). No the invasion of Iraq was not justified. It was based on the premise of WMD's that not even the government believed. It WAS part of an already designed intelligence community objective however that the government has been following lock stock and barrel...

What did it accomplish exactly, Mr. Bush, standing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier.... did you find the wmds? no. Did you remove an unstable leader and install a stable democratic government? no Are the people of Iraq better off now than they were before your actions? hell no.

The US should be brought before the UN and the world court and be held accountable for their invasions of other nations, the murder of countless innocents, the destruction of a large swath of the middle east, the war crimes committ3ed in and around Iraq and other middle eastern countries, the illegal torture of "named combatants" against the rules of the Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, the violations of US law against indefinite incarceration without charges being files, the right of an accused to a speedy trial, the treatment of pretrial incarcerated people and many other laws.

History is always written by the victors, and the US will not always be those victors who write in the history books only the things that make them look good.. hundreds of years from now when another nation or group of nations are in control, history will show the years following 9/11 and the actions taken by the US as some if not THE darkest moments in human history

1 hour ago, Augustus Caesar said:

Zoo has not been canceled 

sorry i assumed it was... it's been eons since the last epi

favorite tv show that was cancelled after they grew attached to it... here are a list of some of mine, check if you agree they should have seen at least another season or two and comment with your own favorites that aren't on my list

1 minute ago, Ernsters said:

 

If you want to have a discussion about God and Christianity I'd love to, you can PM me. 

I just just giving my answer to your question.

I personally don't care one way or the other, just threw the OP out for common discussion is all

23 hours ago, Ernsters said:

The answer is Yes, because he can create anything.

 

But, it's a matter of choice. 

 

For example: You have Free Will because God chooses not to impose his will on you. Can he impose his will? Yes. But is he? No.

 

A better question would be: Can God create a being more powerful then himself?

At which point, I'll see myself out. 

The answer is Yes, because he can create anything.

there's no scientific proof of this, it is a belief that he can based on personal opinion with no factual evidence to prove or disprove it. and for that matter, if I give that he can create anything, then it proves he isnt omnipotent because he just created a rock so big that he isnt powerful enough to lift it thus nullifying his being all powerful

For example: You have Free Will because God chooses not to impose his will on you. Can he impose his will? Yes. But is he? No

Does he REALLY give you free will if in your choice to use it to think for yourself and do any number of things he disagrees with but hurt nobody, he punishes you with the worst possible punishment imaginable? That isnt free will that is do as i say or face eternity being punished for it.... that sounds like imposing his will on people to me. Thats like me saying here's $5m it's yours to do with whatever you want but if you dont spend every penny of it buying kittens and puppies and having them dismembered alive then you have to spend forever burning in a non-consuming flame that can not be put out

8 hours ago, Rin said:

It's not really "abortions bad, y/n?"

 

It's a terrible line to draw. I'd say there's one line within the first trimester, one line between the second and third trimester, and another line between the third trimester to 1.5 years after birth. Babies in the third trimester can already communicate and play.

 

If you think that killing a 3 month old baby is okay, then third trimester babies are okay to kill too.

 

I think it all boils down to the fact that killing anything cute is unethical. Killing and eating fish, sure. Cats? Hell no. Killing kittens should be punished by jail time but not killing chickens.

 

A baby is significantly cuter than an unborn blood covered semi-baby, and thus unethical to kill.

see, here is where I have my biggest problem with a lot of things... that 1 phrase, "is bad"... bad is not something that is set in stone as globally acceptable to all people as an exact set scientific value... "bad" is different for everyone based on their beliefs, values and perspectives. For instance, I believe that speeding is bad, whereas most of my fellow motorists believe that the sign saying speed limit is more like a sign that says speed suggestion. I believe that doing anything to advance your "lot" in life is NOT ok if it hurts another person in you doing so.... most of the "rat race mentality" people believe there are different acceptable levels of hurting another to advance your place in life.While I know that neither of these examples equate to the gravity of the whole abortion debate, they DO equate to abortion debates in the fact that personal opinions are used to form laws surrounding the topic...and one person's opinion isnt always everyone's opinion