because it wasn't america alone who won the war. Plus america weren't trying to conquer anything, hitler was

I was making a point. It's a weird american idea here that if we don't win every war we fight in then the other country will take us over and force us to sing their country's anthem and speak their language. People keep telling me if it wasn't for the bombs hitting hiroshima and nagasaki we would all be speaking japanese. They of course aren't even aware how completely ignorant they are.

[quote=DoomedOne]We won the war how come they're not singing the american national anthem?[/quote]

Because Harry S Trueman was not a Dictator. Plus Germany was split into three sectors when it was taken over. And at that time i doubt Russia would have let the germans sing our anthem in the country they had partial control over.

Harry S Truman was not President during world war 2, and a dictatorship is relative. I think we're living in a dictatorship right now. We have to choose to vote from one a--hole over another. No matter who we elect as a president they're still going to accept money from corporations to pass bills and what not that benefit the pockets of corporate executives over the citizens. In that sense, we don't have a democracy, because the corporations really control America, and they are only in it for their greed. It's a very relative subject, so to assume any absolute about the other side of war is a confounding process.

Harry S. Truman
"In the election of 1944 President Franklin Roosevelt chose Senator Harry S. Truman to be his vice president."

[Deleted by me because of Minque's sage advice]

I think we gotta have a break here! NO one is allowed to insult another one, and we have to keep this thread civil so it may survive.

Use it and discuss in good moods please...I´m watching you.... :madman:

New topic (muah ha ha ha ha)

EVOLUTION

I'll let someone else start.

WE should copy and paste our other posts to here. Then ill let someone(channler) go off with where i stoped.

Looks like you found a reason for you to keep out those projects of yours doomed.

I don't want it to go to waste, hunting down all my old info. But, It was not that difficult. I have a lot of fire power to argue the following:

Death pentalty

Evolution

Religion (I especially love arguing against the end of times but it's so difficult finding someone who actually believes in revelation)

Socialist ideals

Abortion

I'll go with the death penalty one

I'm against the death penalty though.

As am i lol

W'll need to gang up an channler when he comes on.

sure ok

death penalty is right in some cases. so i support it.

Religion should not be disscused here at the forums.

death penalty...........ok for cruelty and molesting of small children.....and as jona said

NO RELIGION it is bound to get overboard

No it shouldn't , because I would have to convert you all... Remeber the spanish inquisition!?

[/quote] Death Penalty [Quote]

I'm for the death penalty, why?

People that kill one another in our nation is wrong, and I'm sure thats elsewhere too

I don't know about you but I don't want some child killer around my little bros

costs to much money for life imprisonment, besides even if they say there is no chance for parole they can still obtain it..

no, i wasn' born for a long time after it

To what Doomedone said in the coffee shop about all the resources he has...

I got one too, it's called the bible.. oh wait, thats not a valid book. I forgot sorry :confused:

[quote=Channler]No it shouldn't , because I would have to convert you all... Remeber the spanish inquisition!?

[/quote] Death Penalty [quote]

I'm for the death penalty, why?

People that kill one another in our nation is wrong, and I'm sure thats elsewhere too

I don't know about you but I don't want some child killer around my little bros

costs to much money for life imprisonment, besides even if they say there is no chance for parole they can still obtain it..[/quote]

Deeath penalty is more then 8 time as expensive as life in prison in certain states.

In Texas, the death pentalty is more than 3 times as expensive as 40 years in prison at the highest security they can offer.

Accounted since 1976 we've spent over 1 biullion dollars extra on executions than we would have if we gave them all life in prison.

Throw the cost out of the window now:

The United Staes is the only 1st world country that has sentenced someone to death in the last 10 years.

There is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty makes people less likely to murder, rape, or commit treason. When there was a complete ban on the death penalty in 1986-1988, there was absolutely no rise in any of those crimes.

Since 1973 119 people have been released from death row because they were later proven innocent.

Countless more have been proven innocent after they were executed.

There have been 16 cases of evidence that they were innocent that the courts chose to ignore so the convicts were executed anyway.

There was one case where a man was proven by DNA evidence to be innocent before he was executed, and executed anyway.

[quote=DoomedOne]
Since 1973 119 people have been released from death row because they were later proven innocent.

Countless more have been proven innocent after they were executed.

There have been 16 cases of evidence that they were innocent that the courts chose to ignore so the convicts were executed anyway.

There was one case where a man was proven by DNA evidence to be innocent before he was executed, and executed anyway.[/quote]

Your not talking about the death penalty anymore, your talking about the lack of evodence proven for a death penalty. Your pretty much argueing that the judges and jurry's are idiots..

No, that is a flaw of appeals, and of government. The only way to abolish that flaw is to abolish the death penatly. People will wrongly charge anyone, it does not matter, because this is all evidence that comes to play AFTER they've been sent to death row. That means ahigher courts are receiving this information, and on sixteen occasions said, "I don't care, kill them anyways." On one of those occasions it was DNA evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt he was innocent. In fact, the appeals court conforimed this evidence, and he was still fried.

Where you cannot perfect a process of life and death, you cannot use it. It is that simple. This is a matter of injustice to the highest level, murder. In each case where an innocent was executed, every person that played a part in that execution is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. Every person in favor of the death penalty is indirectly responsible for every execution under the system they support, whether innocent or not.

Pity about no religion here, that's the only debate I am interested in...

I do not believe in evolution.

I am against abortion, unless mother was in danger of dying.

Unsure about death penalty. Some crimes warrant such action, but... :paperbag2:

[quote=DoomedOne]Religion (I especially love arguing against the end of times but it's so difficult finding someone who actually believes in revelation)[/quote]
You've found one.

Well I´m aware of people´s wish for discussing religion, but let´s wait and see if we can keep discussions of other flammable topics on a decent level in the long run then maybe we can try discuss some of that stuff. So I beg you to be patient.......

Minque! With all the power that I have vested these few months here, I now dubb thee,

Minque, Protector of the Peace

Hear hear
All praise Minque, Protector of the Peace! :rofl:

Minque, the W4O General Secretary!

[quote=Elongar]Minque, the W4O General Secretary![/quote]
of Peace..

[quote=Fuzzy Knight][quote=Elongar]Minque, the W4O General Secretary![/quote]
of Peace.. [/quote]

and security.

Gracias Senhores........I´ll do my very best I assure you...because.....

I´m watching you!!!!!!!!!!!

[quote=minque]Well I´m aware of people´s wish for discussing religion, but let´s wait and see if we can keep discussions of other flammable topics on a decent level in the long run then maybe we can try discuss some of that stuff. So I beg you to be patient....... [/quote]
Keep begging...



I was kidding, however. I have no desire to debate religion here. :paperbag:

I just don't want to see it either. Because if i did you could neve pry me off this computer untill the person i was talking with started accepting christianity. I am a strong beliver and if i see someone even meesing with stuff like OMFG or GD i just want to blow them out.

But yes no religion here please.

I'm a strong believer in respect of other people's beliefs. In the confines of discussion, or in a thread where we're allowed to disagree on a respectful level, I don't mind arguing religion. Here's the thing, when ever I get into an argument that is religious, and we know it's a religious argument, it's almsot like the religious guy can say, "I'm going to go ahead and give circular arguments, because that's what my faith is built upon."

That's why there's no use trying to cinvince anyone to give up their faith, because that's the whole definition of faith, so trying to be persuasive in the argument flatly of faith, it's like there's no point in arguing. However, if the faithful decides to try and argue on a reasonable level then you can argue.

Note: I use the word argue because though some do not understand the true meaning of the word argue, it can actually be something very reasonable. A debate is moderated, and since minque is the closest thing we have to a moderator, we're arguing here.

[quote=DoomedOne]Here's the thing, when ever I get into an argument that is religious, and we know it's a religious argument, it's almsot like the religious guy can say, "I'm going to go ahead and give circular arguments, because that's what my faith is built upon."[/quote]
Faith is not built on circular arguments. Sorry.

And that's so not the only argument Christians can give, which is the meaning I got from your post. :paperbag:

Faith is built on circular arguments, and know you did not understand my post, but anyway:

"This thing is wrong because it's wrong" is a circular argument. There are tons of those in the Christian Faith. All of Leviticus is basically a book of circular arguments.

What I meant by the psot: You can't argues about religion only, it has to be about something specific, because people will believe what they want to believe, and if someone decides to be religious circular to try and fend off a point, you're supposed to respond, "For the purpose of an argument let's please stick to waht we can prove."

I'm so tempted to start arguing the case against the existence of God, but its just not worth it. I've done it countless times before and I'll just end up annoying people. Most of the time the non-religious agree and the religious state spurious doctrines to undermine the argument, so it wouldn't be productive. What topic are we supposed to be debating again?

Whatever you can come up with ATM

I belive what I believe and as DoomedOne said,

[quote=DoomedOne]That's why there's no use trying to cinvince anyone to give up their faith, because that's the whole definition of faith, so trying to be persuasive in the argument flatly of faith, it's like there's no point in arguing.[/quote]

It's hard to argue something that is deeply convicted in your heart. You tend not to look at the other side of the arguement, and all it becomes is a flame fest.

I do think though that you really can't say, "well I got all these books on evolution and whatnot, that give me all the answers" Cause I got a book, and it tells me the answers I need to know as well, its just not looked at the same way...

I think this has run it's course. We're close enough to 200 posts, discussing religion and going off-track, anyway.
Feel free to make a new one, but keep it tidy.

Going to close this now.

ayyyy you beat me to it Epy!