NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's say that all the governments of the world teamed up and allowed you to make one law that would be recognized and upholded globally. What would it be?

A law giving me power to make an infinite number of new and binding laws by decree.

Religious freedom and the right to be free of religion:). Watch them get all screwed up over THAT one!

A law giving me power to make an infinite number of new laws by decree.
You should know that if this isn't allowed with a genii, it won't be allowed here :D

Henceforth, each Tuesday shall be referred to as "Miniskirt Tuesday" and all women are required to wear miniskirts on that day.

Optional naked Tuesdays.

The one that comes to my mind is legalizing gay marriage fully.

Right to oppress for no apparent reason.

death to all right-wingers! to hell with pacifism... this is opportunism extraordinaire! :P

Let's say that all the governments of the world teamed up and allowed you to make one law that would be recognized and upholded globally. What would it be?
that computer viruses, Spyware, Malware and Hacking will be classified as Terrorist Acts and will be persecuted as such.

In this day and age where computers are now intergrated deeply in countrys and government, such viruses and actions can now be dangerous to National and international security.

Toughie...

Probably the limitation of nuclear weapons to the first five who had them(plus pakistan and india). These nations do a well enough job maintaining peace.

Or maybe a no war between middle eastern nations law. I cant think of the last time a war was started between two middle eastern nations, where the aggressor was justified. They can solve problems diplomatically.

Perhaps a law, forcing nations to start looking for alternative fuel sources, each nation being allowed to use 10% less of current oil supply's every three years, until 2032, where they can continue with 10%(to be delegated mostly for military, probably). Nuclear power would be acceptable. Nations would not be required to go below what the US 10% level was, per capita.

death to all right-wingers! to hell with pacifism... this is opportunism extraordinaire! :P

But that's only one law. I passed one giving me unlimited numbers of laws, so I could just pass a law outlawing yours. Actually, that makes me more or less ruler of the world...

But that's only one law. I passed one giving me unlimited numbers of laws, so I could just pass a law outlawing yours. Actually, that makes me more or less ruler of the world...
*n00ks j00*

there, thats settled then :rolleyes:

I would outlaw stupidity.

Yes, I know it would never work, but isn't it a lovely thought?

No person who actively seeks the office of the President of the United States, by themselves or by proxie, shall be allowed to hold said office.

that computer viruses, Spyware, Malware and Hacking will be classified as Terrorist Acts and will be persecuted as such.

In this day and age where computers are now intergrated deeply in countrys and government, such viruses and actions can now be dangerous to National and international security.
Good Law. My law will support yours by allowing US intelligence and military personell to apprehend or assasinate spyware, malware, and virus writers even if a sovreign country decides to give them sanctuary.

No person who actively seeks the office of the President of the United States, by themselves or by proxie, shall be allowed to hold said office.
TV Commercial: Hi, my name is Jeb Bush... And I would like to plead with the American people NOT to vote for me, I don't want the job... really, don't vote for me or my running mate.

(they win because their opponent sent out a flyer for a fundraiser for his bid for President.)

Let's say that all the governments of the world teamed up and allowed you to make one law that would be recognized and upholded globally. What would it be?

all government must be democraticaly elected.

Good Law. My law will support yours by allowing US intelligence and military personell to apprehend or assasinate spyware, malware, and virus writers even if a sovreign country decides to give them sanctuary.

Even better, just revoke their human rights, then we can take care of them ourselves. Preferably with hammers or pointy things.

Also I'd abolish censorship. It's been upsetting me for so long now, and it would eliminate Jack Thompson, and make Hilary Clinton tolerable again.

No other law made be made unless it directly protects an individual from undesired loss of life, freedom or property (real estate or otherwise), by (a) seperate indiviual(s) or other entities employing methods of either force or fraud.

I would pass a law making the observance of Christian morals mandatory. Not forced-Christianity, since true salvation is only attainable through willing conversion, but at least they wouldn't be able to corrupt the rest of us by attempting to legalize sinful acts :p

I would pass a law making the observance of Christian morals mandatory. Not forced-Christianity, since true salvation is only attainable through willing conversion, but at least they wouldn't be able to corrupt the rest of us by attempting to legalize sinful acts :p

True tyranny. I'd be the first to fight against it and form a rebel group for freedom.

I would pass a law making the observance of Christian morals mandatory. Not forced-Christianity, since true salvation is only attainable through willing conversion, but at least they wouldn't be able to corrupt the rest of us by attempting to legalize sinful acts :p

I'd have to rebel against that law :p

You'll never take me alive!

No person who actively seeks the office of the President of the United States, by themselves or by proxie, shall be allowed to hold said office.


/Grammar Nazi on


It's Proxy.


/Grammar Nazi off


Sorry, if it's going to be stated like an official law, it has to be spelled correctly :D

True tyranny. I'd be the first to fight against it and form a rebel group for freedom.


If we weren't such pacifists, we would execute you :(

If we weren't such pacifists, we would execute you :(

Christian fundies have done plenty of that.

But then again you couldn't because I would topple the law and the governments that support it.

Even better, just revoke their human rights, then we can take care of them ourselves. Preferably with hammers or pointy things.

Also I'd abolish censorship. It's been upsetting me for so long now, and it would eliminate Jack Thompson, and make Hilary Clinton tolerable again.



She was intolerable when I was 6 lol.

Christian fundies have done plenty of that.

But then again you couldn't because I would topple the law and the governments that support it.



In the interest of preserving this thread from hijacking, I'm going to let you go ahead and let that fly.

/Grammar Nazi on


It's Proxy.


/Grammar Nazi off


Sorry, if it's going to be stated like an official law, it has to be spelled correctly :D

Damn. Ah well, there goes perfection. I will miss it.

I’d pass a law forcing governments to be truly secular.

I would pass a law making the observance of Christian morals mandatory. Not forced-Christianity, since true salvation is only attainable through willing conversion, but at least they wouldn't be able to corrupt the rest of us by attempting to legalize sinful acts :p

Isn't God into testing the faith of his children? Removing temptation would be against God's plan. Plus, the truly faithful would not be tempted.

So, what are you afraid of, little girl? I think someone lacks a sufficient amount of faith.

Isn't God into testing the faith of his children? Removing temptation would be against God's plan. Plus, the truly faithful would not be tempted.

So, what are you afraid of, little girl? I think someone lacks a sufficient amount of faith.



The truly faithful are oft tempted, they just choose not to yield to temptation ;)

Sunset law. Every other law, except this one, must be voted on and passed by whatever congressional/parliamentary body any nation has every 5 years or the law expires.

Keep congress too busy renewing old oppressive laws to think up new ones.

Let's say that all the governments of the world teamed up and allowed you to make one law that would be recognized and upholded globally. What would it be?

I would outlaw the use of the word "upholded". ;)

Outlaw genocide. Simple.

If I had a second law, legalized personal freedoms (meaning drugs, prostitution, suicide, euthanasia, anything that involves consenting adults harming themselves in your eyes is still none of your damn business).

The truly faithful are oft tempted, they just choose not to yield to temptation ;)

Ah, so then the sins of the unbelievers and the temptations they bring about should be of no concern to you. Especially since their forced compliance won't help them anyway. Seems like a waste of government money regulating it then, and a violation of free will.

Besides, it much easier to tell a saint from a sinner if you let them be.

Ah, so then the sins of the unbelievers and the temptations they bring about should be of no concern to you. Especially since their forced compliance won't help them anyway. Seems like a waste of government money regulating it then, and a violation of free will.

Besides, it much easier to tell a saint from a sinner if you let them be.


I'd rather live in a world conducive to my beliefs than in an immoral one opposed to them. :)


And it's not a violation of free will: We have laws in place to prevent murder and people still do it. They have to pay the consequences.

I would pass a law making the observance of Christian morals mandatory. Not forced-Christianity, since true salvation is only attainable through willing conversion, but at least they wouldn't be able to corrupt the rest of us by attempting to legalize sinful acts :p

Interesting how God allows temptation in the world but you do not. I wonder, who's right?

Sunset law. Every other law, except this one, must be voted on and passed by whatever congressional/parliamentary body any nation has every 5 years or the law expires.

Keep congress too busy renewing old oppressive laws to think up new ones.
wouldn't work, they can alway create a new blanket law and make changes. it infact, will make it easer to create more oppressive laws.

after all to make it simpler, they can allow the old laws to expire and vote in the use of the 10 commandmants to make their job easier.

Renew 10 laws or 1010 laws... hmmm which is easier do you think?

and this is turning into another religious debate. please stop it.

Interesting how God allows temptation in the world but you do not. I wonder, who's right?


This will be my last religious post since we do need to stop digressing from the topic: This would not eliminate temptation, but it would make certain that the immoral and corrupt people were placed in jail where they belong.

What about a law that requires all future laws to be OKed by me. The Ultimate Vetoin in the hands of moi, think of the possibilities, think of the wonder, think of the . . . corruption.

I'd rather live in a world conducive to my beliefs than in an immoral one opposed to them. :)

I don't think so. Your views aren't moral.

would make certain that the immoral and corrupt people were placed in jail where they belong.

Like me for just being gay? I don't think so. You have hitleristic tendencies.

I'm with the legalization of all personal freedoms law by Jocabia


If I had a second law, legalized personal freedoms (meaning drugs, prostitution, suicide, euthanasia, anything that involves consenting adults harming themselves in your eyes is still none of your damn business).

So I will pass this law.

I'd rather live in a world conducive to my beliefs than in an immoral one opposed to them. :)


And it's not a violation of free will: We have laws in place to prevent murder and people still do it. They have to pay the consequences.

I notice Jesus never called for Mary Magdalene to be arrested.

I don't think so. Your views aren't moral.



Like me for just being gay? I don't think so. You have hitleristic tendencies.



Trying to get a rise out of me because nobody else will take you seriously? Not gonna work.

I notice Jesus never called for Mary Magdalene to be arrested.



Once again: There's no proof or strong evidence suggesting she was a harlot!!!!!

This will be my last religious post since we do need to stop digressing from the topic: This would not eliminate temptation, but it would make certain that the immoral and corrupt people were placed in jail where they belong.

The people YOU decide are immoral and corrupt. Last I checked, Christianity views us ALL as sinners. YOU would be deciding which sins warranted jail time and which did not.

I notice Jesus never called for Mary Magdalene to be arrested.

The opposite really, he stood up against laws AGAINST sinners and he spoke out AGAINST those that would oppress them.

The people YOU decide are immoral and corrupt. Last I checked, Christianity views us ALL as sinners. YOU would be deciding which sins warranted jail time and which did not.


The ones which people will not repent for and abstain from in the future ;)

The opposite really, he stood up against laws AGAINST sinners and he spoke out AGAINST those that would oppress them.


Then pronounced the eternal fate of sinners. Your point?

The ones which people will not repent for and abstain from in the future ;)

Do all the laws of leviticus apply then?

I'm with the legalization of all personal freedoms law by Jocabia



So I will pass this law.

YAY! No oppression or genocide. This is a much better world than the one that exists today. Hell, it's much better than the America that exists today.

Trying to get a rise out of me because nobody else will take you seriously? Not gonna work.

Oh plenty do and plenty agree here with my views on homosexuality.

You are the one who is out of date.

Do all the laws of leviticus apply then?


Last time I checked, Christ established a new law which his apostles taught and abolished the old one.

Then pronounced the eternal fate of sinners. Your point?

The point is that God is the only arbiter of morality. Eternal damnation is a harsher penalty than any punishment passed down by man.

The point is that God is the only arbiter of morality. Eternal damnation is a harsher penalty than any punishment passed down by man.


But the Bible also mandates regulations by men to preserve morality. Many of you seem to forget that.

Last time I checked, Christ established a new law which his apostles taught and abolished the old one.

Ah, so only the new testament applies. Does that mean that churches shouldn't conduct business, since Jesus was moved to trash the moneymakers at the temple?

[sighs as YET ANOTHER THREAD decends into the pit of religous debate]

Congrats guys, enjoy.

[leaves thread]

YAY! No oppression or genocide. This is a much better world than the one that exists today. Hell, it's much better than the America that exists today.


woohoo!

time to get some drugs and hookers and go off ourselves!

Oh plenty do and plenty agree here with my views on homosexuality.

You are the one who is out of date.


From what I read, you rejected all evidence that homosexuality involved by enviroment and genetics and those people left in disgust. Leaving in disgust does not equate with conceding the point.

Ah, so only the new testament applies. Does that mean that churches shouldn't conduct business, since Jesus was moved to trash the moneymakers at the temple?


The apostles laid down the foundation for congregational distribution of money, to extend upon would, indeed, be excessive.

Either ban liberals, or ban abortion.

liberals would be better in the long run.

Let's say that all the governments of the world teamed up and allowed you to make one law that would be recognized and upholded globally. What would it be?

Criticism of the United States of America warrants death by mosh pit.

Either ban liberals, or ban abortion.

liberals would be better in the long run.



/clap

From what I read, you rejected all evidence that homosexuality involved by enviroment and genetics and those people left in disgust. Leaving in disgust does not equate with conceding the point.

Unfortunately for you, you didn't read the argument. First off, many agreed with me that the primary factor is genetics. You are just plain wrong and your views are too.

Unfortunately for you, you didn't read the argument. First off, many agreed with me that the primary factor is genetics. You are just plain wrong and your views are too.


Someone tell me how to put him on ignore... :headbang:

Then pronounced the eternal fate of sinners. Your point?

The ones which people will not repent for and abstain from in the future

All sinners? You are sinner. I am. So is everyone else here. Unless you can judge honestly which of them truly believe in Jesus as their savior (you can't) and which truly repent (you can't) then you have no basis to decide which will be punished and which will not. Do you suggest you no longer sin because you are a Christian? You NEVER lie, are prideful, spiteful, judgemental, treat others as you would not want to be treated, covetous, etc.? If you claim, no, I know the truth of this. You aren't abstaining from sin, perhaps you belong in prison.

There is only one judge of sin and morality and it ain't you. The laws of men are exactly that, the laws of man. Seperation of Church and State protects both the Church and the State. I will not have you mandate the form of my interaction with the Lord and Jesus Christ and the Lord and Jesus Christ would discourage this as well.

let see... ban liberals, ban freedom of choice, death to those that aren't nationalisic to a fault and force4 everyone to live by Christian values (jail those who don't). Good ol' conservative cold-heartedness.

Someone tell me how to put him on ignore... :headbang:


I'll tell you if you end the off-topic religious discussion right here, right now (like you promised to do earlier).

Unfortunately for you, you didn't read the argument. First off, many agreed with me that the primary factor is genetics. You are just plain wrong and your views are too.

Those people that agree with you are called scientists. People who disagree are called blind to the evidence. An edit to your point however is that there are other gestational factors that are not completely genetic but certainly do not amount to choice.

I'll tell you if you end the off-topic religious discussion right here, right now (like you promised to do earlier).
Can she talk about anything BUT religion?

let see... ban liberals, ban freedom of choice, death to those that aren't nationalisic to a fault and force4 everyone to live by Christian values (jail those who don't). Good ol' conservative cold-heartedness.

Yes, and do it all under the claim that these are loving, patient acts rather than spiteful, prideful, jealous acts.

Those people that agree with you are called scientists. People who disagree are called blind to the evidence. An edit to your point however is that there are other gestational factors that are not completely genetic but certainly do not amount to choice.

If I could hug you, I would. Thank you!

Can she talk about anything BUT religion?


NO she can talk about religion too if she wants. She just said she would stop the threadjacking with the religious discussion earlier in the thread but continued so I was offering the answer if she actually did stop.

Anyway, I cant seem to find the ignore button anymore. Was it removed?

Yes, and do it all under the claim that these are loving, patient acts rather than spiteful, prideful, jealous acts.

In a world like that I would gladly die by mosh-pit or however else. Life wouldn't be worth living.

Allow terrorists to walk the streets of America unimpeded... because HOW DARE WE deny anyone his rights?!

lol

To HELL with the right to LIFE... it's the #1 right guaranteed in our Constitution, but who needs it? It's far more important to be politically correct than to respect people's rights to live (IE, to protect them from terrorists).

Allow terrorists to walk the streets of America unimpeded... because HOW DARE WE deny anyone his rights?!

lol

Thats a horrible law. How dare you endanger the lives of all your countrymen like that.

Allow terrorists to walk the streets of America unimpeded... because HOW DARE WE deny anyone his rights?!

Thats exactly what left-wing people think.

Thats exactly what left-wing people think.


I feel sorry for anyone that actually believes that.

A trained helper monkey for all

Allow terrorists to walk the streets of America unimpeded... because HOW DARE WE deny anyone his rights?!

lol

To HELL with the right to LIFE... it's the #1 right guaranteed in our Constitution, but who needs it? It's far more important to be politically correct than to respect people's rights to live (IE, to protect them from terrorists).


Yeah! Lets bring back slavery too! :rolleyes:

Thats exactly what left-wing people think.

I call bullshit. Show me any politician who says that terrorists should not be punished for the actions.

Yeah! Lets bring back slavery too! :rolleyes:

hey whats wrong with a bit of regulated slavery, bring people from these starving African countries to a better life in the USA or UK, they get food and shelter and all they have to do is work for a living.

Yeah! Lets bring back slavery too! :rolleyes:

and force feed people caster oil!!!

I call bullshit. Show me any politician who says that terrorists should not be punished for the actions.

The democrats trying to shut guantanamo bay down!

The democrats trying to shut guantanamo bay down!

Did they say shut it down and let them all go free?

Guantanamo Bay isn't needed to hold terrorists. A few have successfully been charged in our court system and we have gotten good intelligence from them as well.

Thats a horrible law. How dare you endanger the lives of all your countrymen like that.

it was posted with oodles of sarcasm.

i'm trying to think of an alternative to Gitmo... trial without bail?

My law would criminalize homosexuality in all of its forms. Actually I think it would be easier to just criminalize being liberal instead.

Did they say shut it down and let them all go free?

Guantanamo Bay isn't needed to hold terrorists. A few have successfully been charged in our court system and we have gotten good intelligence from them as well.

Well where are they meant to put the many terrorists that are held there?

hey whats wrong with a bit of regulated slavery, bring people from these starving African countries to a better life in the USA or UK, they get food and shelter and all they have to do is work for a living.

It shouldn't be that way, they shouldn't have to give up their freedoms just because they are poor, unless your talking about immigration and citzenship.

and force feed people caster oil!!!

ick

here's a good law... Americans are fat. This should take care of that problem:

Every American shall hereby, soon after every meal, swallow one dose of ipecac syrup.

hehe

My law would criminalize homosexuality in all of its forms. Actually I think it would be easier to just criminalize being liberal instead.

We have a winner! You and me really should be friends, ever considered moving to the region "Elite Conservative Circuit"?

Optional naked Tuesdays.

YAY! :D

it was posted with oodles of sarcasm.

i'm trying to think of an alternative to Gitmo... trial without bail?

I know it was. You were trying to say that that is what left leaning people want to let terrorists roam free. Hah ha, very funny. Theres so much evidence to suport that too right? Bring it.

There is a viable alternative to Gitmo. The American penal system.

We have a winner! You and me really should be friends, ever considered moving to the region "Elite Conservative Circuit"?


Can I come too? :D

"It is better to die free then live as a slave". It shouldn't be that way, they shouldn't have to give up their freedoms just because they are poor, unless your talking about immigration and citzenship.

They don't particularly have much freedom. For them every day is a struggle, of course the slavery would be regulated and they would be given the same rights as children or pets are. No harm should come to them. But liberals would want to kill them as seen as they want to kill babies inside the mothers womb.

Well where are they meant to put the many terrorists that are held there?


How about jail? Are these supposed terroriss super criminals that can break out of any cell unless gaurded by the military?

Can I come too? :D

If you're a conservative you can.

My law would make it illegal to arrest anyone while they are masturbating. The police must wait until the suspect is finished. :p

They don't particularly have much freedom. For them every day is a struggle, of course the slavery would be regulated and they would be given the same rights as children or pets are. No harm should come to them. But liberals would want to kill them as seen as they want to kill babies inside the mothers womb.



Liberalism is starting to become a cult of death it seems :p

My law would make it illegal to arrest anyone while they are masturbating. The police must wait until the suspect is finished. :p


Are you making this law because of a personal experience?

My law would make it illegal to arrest anyone while they are masturbating. The police must wait until the suspect is finished. :p
they'll have to do it before he washes his hands tho... that's evidence that is..

The democrats trying to shut guantanamo bay down!

Oh, I see. And all of those people are proven terrorists? While I disagree with the idea of shutting down Gitmo or with open trials, people are arguing for open trials of those SUSPECTED of a crime BEFORE they are permanently incarcerated. I suspect that if you were taken from your home and placed in jail indefinitely while you were secretly investigated, you might agree with those people and still not believe that the rights of terrorists should not be infringed upon. Burn, strawman, burn.

so when do i get my helper monkey?

:) :) :)

[sighs as YET ANOTHER THREAD decends into the pit of religous debate]

Congrats guys, enjoy.

[leaves thread]

I'll be following in a minute, after i say my piece.



I would pass a law that government would exist to redistribute income by doing the following:

Immediately, anyone worth more than ten million dollars would have to give up all but 10 million dollars. They may give it away, but not more than a million dollars per recipient.

Income would be limited to $1000/day, including gifts and gratuities.

THe income tax structure would be as follows: Your 1st $100,000 is tax-free. Any amount over that is taxed at a 100% rate, unless you give to charity. You may keep an equal amount of your income over $100,000 as you give to charity. The government gets the rest (i.e. if you make $200,000, and give $50,000 to charity, you keep $150,000; if you give $20,000 to charity, you keep $120,000 and the government gets $60,000).

The money thus collected by the government would be used immediately for feeding and providing medical care to the poor and eventually for creating poverty-solving solutions.

Once there is no more poverty, and all humans are fed, clothed, and have access to education and medical care, the maximum income level could be raised accordingly.

My law would make it illegal to arrest anyone while they are masturbating. The police must wait until the suspect is finished. :p



Umm....ewww x.x

They don't particularly have much freedom. For them every day is a struggle, of course the slavery would be regulated and they would be given the same rights as children or pets are. No harm should come to them. But liberals would want to kill them as seen as they want to kill babies inside the mothers womb.

Indeed, damn liberals and their baby killing ways, of course the opression and creation of a lower breed of people is such a lovely thing. (Giving people new lives is one thing, Slavery is totaly different.)

One last thing. THE SAME RIGHTS A PETS!!! AS ANIMALS!!!! What the hell is wrong with you. Yes, maybe slavery is preferable to death, but you can't just make some on a lesser person because they were born in a certain part of the world.

Oh, I see. And all of those people are proven terrorists? While I disagree with the idea of shutting down Gitmo or with open trials, people are arguing for open trials of those SUSPECTED of a crime BEFORE they are permanently incarcerated. I suspect that if you were taken from your home and placed in jail indefinitely while you were secretly investigated, you might agree with those people and still not believe that the rights of terrorists should not be infringed upon. Burn, strawman, burn.

I somehow doubt that I will be taken from my home because I'm not someone who believes that there are 80 virgins waiting for me if I blow myself up and kill innocent civilians. And these people are suspected of being errorists, so the american government must have some reason to believe they are.

Well where are they meant to put the many terrorists that are held there?

They are meant to place them in jail, while freeing the many people who are there and who are NOT terrorists. Most of them have never been tried. This means even the government agrees that they are not PROVEN terrorists.

The democrats trying to shut guantanamo bay down!

Um, i dont think anyone is suggesting that we release the prisoners in guantanamo into the streets of america.

they probably want to go home to their families.

Indeed, damn liberals and their baby killing ways, of course the opression and creation of a lower breed of people is such a lovely thing. (Giving people new lives is one thing, Slavery is totaly different.)

One last thing. THE SAME RIGHTS A PETS!!! AS ANIMALS!!!! What the hell is wrong with you. Yes, maybe slavery is preferable to death, but you can't just make some on a lesser person because they were born in a certain part of the world.



Ok, how about neither? No murder and no slavery sounds about right :D

My law would make it illegal to arrest anyone while they are masturbating. The police must wait until the suspect is finished. :pyou know LG... anyone being arrested by the Police for Mastubating usually stop.
I really cannot see anyone continuing to masterbate, thus forcing the police to wait.

THE SAME RIGHTS A PETS!!! AS ANIMALS!!!!

I meant in thew anti-cruelty kind of way.

Um, i dont think anyone is suggesting that we release the prisoners in guantanamo into the streets of america.

they probably want to go home to their families.



Are you honestly suggesting we release them at all!?

I somehow doubt that I will be taken from my home because I'm not someone who believes that there are 80 virgins waiting for me if I blow myself up and kill innocent civilians. And these people are suspected of being errorists, so the american government must have some reason to believe they are.

Yes, of course. No one has ever been incarcerated and been innocent. /sarcasm

Seems to me that more explosions in the US are caused by Christians than anything else. Seems like you should be on the list. Let's see, Oklahoma City, abortion clinics, etc. Yep, us Christians and our fanatical ways. Let's just incarcerate the whole lot of us.

They don't particularly have much freedom. For them every day is a struggle, of course the slavery would be regulated and they would be given the same rights as children or pets are. No harm should come to them. But liberals would want to kill them as seen as they want to kill babies inside the mothers womb.

flame bait if i ever heard it

you know LG... anyone being arrested by the Police for Mastubating usually stop.
I really cannot see anyone continuing to masterbate, thus forcing the police to wait.

Well, it's this contest of wills that make things interesting. *nod* :)

Fine, maybe what i said earlier shouldn't be considered slavery, because its not, its giving these people the chance to move in with a family in the west and do their housework etc for them in return for good housing, food, a little extra money per week to buy nice things and rights. and their should be no harm brought to them.

Are you making this law because of a personal experience?

:D

Yes, of course. No one has ever been incarcerated and been innocent. /sarcasm

Seems to me that more explosions in the US are caused by Christians than anything else. Seems like you should be on the list. Let's see, Oklahoma City, abortion clinics, etc. Yep, us Christians and our fanatical ways. Let's just incarcerate the whole lot of us.


So, those "peaceful, law-abiding individuals" were on the battlefield with guns firing us out of sheer coincidence?

Are you honestly suggesting we release them at all!?

not all of them. just the ones not charged with a crime.

habeus corpus, baby!

Yes, of course. No one has ever been incarcerated and been innocent. /sarcasm

Seems to me that more explosions in the US are caused by Christians than anything else. Seems like you should be on the list. Let's see, Oklahoma City, abortion clinics, etc. Yep, us Christians and our fanatical ways. Let's just incarcerate the whole lot of us.

I'm not a Christian, I don't understand how anyone can believe in an all knowing being, I'm just a conservative, and I don't blow things up, are you sugesting all Christians should be locked up, because there are liberal Cristians, don't generalise so much.

sarcasm seems lost on Blu-tac....

Fine, maybe what i said earlier shouldn't be considered slavery, because its not, its giving these people the chance to move in with a family in the west and do their housework etc for them in return for good housing, food, a little extra money per week to buy nice things and rights. and their should be no harm brought to them.


Slavery has a negative connotation since it is typically associated with cruelty. It would be more like a serf and his lord, where he is guaranteed food, shelter, and safety in exchange for service. As long as the servant is treated like a human, where is the evil in it? Restricting the individual's choice to work in the vocation he/she chooses? That's about all you can throw at it.

Let's see, we'll outlaw freedom of thought, freedom of religion, bring back slavery, outlaw a particular politcal bent, and force people to act 'morally' as defined by the government, all in the name of Christianity? That about right? I'm ashamed as a follower of Christ that people consider people who would do such things followers of Christ. *bows his head and heads home*

hey whats wrong with a bit of regulated slavery, bring people from these starving African countries to a better life in the USA or UK, they get food and shelter and all they have to do is work for a living.

Why do you hate America for it's freedoms?

not all of them. just the ones not charged with a crime.

habeus corpus, baby!



So, what about those who were showing every inclination of wanting to blow us up, but were caught before they committed the crime? Are we to release them and then rearrest them after they destroy a city?

Slavery has a negative connotation since it is typically associated with cruelty. It would be more like a serf and his lord, where he is guaranteed food, shelter, and safety in exchange for service. As long as the servant is treated like a human, where is the evil in it? Restricting the individual's choice to work in the vocation he/she chooses? That's about all you can throw at it.

Wanna be my slave Neo Rogolia?

So, those "peaceful, law-abiding individuals" were on the battlefield with guns firing us out of sheer coincidence?

Not all of them were captured on the battlefield with guns. If so they would fall under the Geneva convention and they don't.

Why do you hate America for it's freedoms?

I don't hate America, I love america more than I love my own country, so how you can accuse me of that.

Wanna be my slave Neo Rogolia?



No thanks, I'm certainly not advocating slavery. It just gets my feathers ruffled when people tend to equate cruel slavery with kind slavery. I'm really not for either, but let's be fair in our judgements.

Let's see, we'll outlaw freedom of thought, freedom of religion, bring back slavery, outlaw a particular politcal bent, and force people to act 'morally' as defined by the government, all in the name of Christianity? That about right? I'm ashamed as a follower of Christ that people consider people who would do such things followers of Christ. *bows his head and heads home*

Well if you're aiming that at me, which to me it seems you are, let me tell you again, I said I was not Christian, i'm just conservative.

I'm not a Christian, I don't understand how anyone can believe in an all knowing being, I'm just a conservative, and I don't blow things up, are you sugesting all Christians should be locked up, because there are liberal Cristians, don't generalise so much.

Oh, THANK GOD. Hear that, everybody. He's not a Christian.

I saw a comedian once that said she watches the news (she's black) and says, please don't let him be black, please don't let him be black. I watch the threads and go, please don't let them call themselves a Christian, please do let them call themselves a Christian.

Oh, THANK GOD. Hear that, everybody. He's not a Christian.

I saw a comedian once that said she watches the news (she's black) and says, please don't let him be black, please don't let him be black. I watch the threads and go, please don't let them call themselves a Christian, please don't let them call themselves a Christian.



Corrections in bold ;)

I'm not a Christian, I don't understand how anyone can believe in an all knowing being, I'm just a conservative, and I don't blow things up, are you sugesting all Christians should be locked up, because there are liberal Cristians, don't generalise so much.

I'm a Christian and I'm well-aware they cannot all be lumped into the category I noted.

Corrections in bold ;)

Thanks. I'm gonna leave it wrong cuz it's funny.

So, what about those who were showing every inclination of wanting to blow us up, but were caught before they committed the crime? Are we to release them and then rearrest them after they destroy a city?

No, we're to try them in a court of law. You forget that these people have not had trials. They have been convicted of no crime.

So, what about those who were showing every inclination of wanting to blow us up, but were caught before they committed the crime? Are we to release them and then rearrest them after they destroy a city?

So you think it's okay to incarcerate someone indefinitely who MIGHT commit a crime?

With your extremist views, i might think you are inclined to blow up a women's clinic. Should you be arrested, taken out of the country to a secret prison where even the Red Cross isn't allowed in? Should you be held without charges, without a lawyer, without a trial?

Because you're inclined to do something in another person's opinion?

As has been mentioned before, if there were real evidence, why can't they be charged, given a lawyer, and taken to trial?

'shit or get off the pot' as they say in tropical montana.

No thanks, I'm certainly not advocating slavery. It just gets my feathers ruffled when people tend to equate cruel slavery with kind slavery. I'm really not for either, but let's be fair in our judgements.

In practice, there's no such thing as kind slavery, just as there's no such thing as functioning Communism.

Another law I would pass, if in substitute to the one I named, would be outlawing fundamentalism... like fundamentalist christianity.

So, those "peaceful, law-abiding individuals" were on the battlefield with guns firing us out of sheer coincidence?

Those captured on the battlefield with guns fall under the Geneva convention. The claim is that those at Gitmo do not because they were not on the battlefield.

Another law I would pass, if in substitute to the one I named, would be outlawing fundamentalism... like fundamentalist christianity.



*stands clear of the human lightning rod*

So you think it's okay to incarcerate someone indefinitely who MIGHT commit a crime?

With your extremist views, i might think you are inclined to blow up a women's clinic. Should you be arrested, taken out of the country to a secret prison where even the Red Cross isn't allowed in? Should you be held without charges, without a lawyer, without a trial?

Because you're inclined to do something in another person's opinion?

As has been mentioned before, if there were real evidence, why can't they be charged, given a lawyer, and taken to trial?

'shit or get off the pot' as they say in tropical montana.


Well then I could say exactly the same thing to you, you "might" murder conservatives, but you probably won't, becasue you're probably a law abiding citizen, the fact is that these people must have done something to attract the army's attention and get themselves in there in the first place.

Another law I would pass, if in substitute to the one I named, would be outlawing fundamentalism... like fundamentalist christianity.

if fundamentalist = extremist, then i might agree to outlaw all extremists. But i wouldn't send them to jail. i would set aside an island and put them all there until they work it out amongst themselves.

Let the jihadists and the evangelists all kill each other, and the rest of us can live in peace.

*stands clear of the human lightning rod*

How old are you?

So you think it's okay to incarcerate someone indefinitely who MIGHT commit a crime?

With your extremist views, i might think you are inclined to blow up a women's clinic. Should you be arrested, taken out of the country to a secret prison where even the Red Cross isn't allowed in? Should you be held without charges, without a lawyer, without a trial?

Because you're inclined to do something in another person's opinion?

As has been mentioned before, if there were real evidence, why can't they be charged, given a lawyer, and taken to trial?

'shit or get off the pot' as they say in tropical montana.



Do you see me with explosive materials, books on how to make them, and encouraging letters from fellow militants wishing me good luck in my "martyrdom?"

Well then I could say exactly the same thing to you, you "might" murder conservatives, but you probably won't, becasue you're probably a law abiding citizen, the fact is that these people must have done something to attract the army's attention and get themselves in there in the first place.


OK so now youre saying that ATTRACTING THE ATTENTION of law enforcement is enough to be held indefinitely without charges?

Well then I could say exactly the same thing to you, you "might" murder conservatives, but you probably won't, becasue you're probably a law abiding citizen, the fact is that these people must have done something to attract the army's attention and get themselves in there in the first place.

Then let them be tried for the laws they broke. Otherwise, free them. We have a little thing called justice here in America and holding someone indefinitely who has not been tried or even charged with a crime aint it.

How old are you?


19

Mine is more a constitutional amendment. Of course most of the amendments went through countless rewrites so it probably wouldn't look like this if it ever got passed. Of course it could probably be improved on.


"Congress shall pass no law that in effect discriminates between Citizens of the United States on the bases of race, gender, religion, personal belief, lifestyle, or affiliation. Nor stall the executive officer uphold any law that does the same."

Do you see me with explosive materials, books on how to make them, and encouraging letters from fellow militants wishing me good luck in my "martyrdom?"

If those things were actually found, then CHARGE them, give them a lawyer, and PUT THEM ON TRIAL!!

Do you see me with explosive materials, books on how to make them, and encouraging letters from fellow militants wishing me good luck in my "martyrdom?"

If you had those things you could be tried and convicted of a crime.

*stands clear of the human lightning rod*

You just don't get it do you? People don't like you here.. you are unpopular..

19

Okay then, I can safely start a program to tempt and corrupt you without breeching any of my morals.

OK so now youre saying that ATTRACTING THE ATTENTION of law enforcement is enough to be held indefinitely without charges?

They were probably walking around police recruitment centres shouting "Allah Akbar" of course they're gonna do something bad.

You just don't get it do you? People don't like you here.. you are unpopular..



Yes, because NS is a popularity contest :rolleyes:

You just don't get it do you? People don't like you here.. you are unpopular..

I'm used to it. I'm too "boring" for everyone else, and too obsessed with morals.

They were probably walking around police recruitment centres shouting "Allah Akbar" of course they're gonna do something bad.


Does this mean you are officially against freedom of speech?

Yes, because NS is a popularity contest :rolleyes:

You just aren't liked here.. I'm serious.. all you say pisses people off.. and then you push your christianity on other people.. just plain rude.

so i'm not getting my monkey? :(

Does this mean you are officially against freedom of speech?

Do you know what Allah Akbar is, its what suicide bombers shout before blowing themselves up.

You just don't get it do you? People don't like you here.. you are unpopular..

i dunno, something tells me she's popular because she gives the rest of us such ample opportunity to make good points.

You just aren't liked here.. I'm serious.. all you say pisses people off.. and then you push your christianity on other people.. just plain rude.

Who cares? I certainly don't.

You just aren't liked here.. I'm serious.. all you say pisses people off.. and then you push your christianity on other people.. just plain rude.


Yes, I believe it is stated in 1 Mesatecala 3:29 "Verily, I say unto thee: Blessed are the popular, and those without backbones to stand up for Me, for they shall inherit the Kingdom of God."

Do you know what Allah Akbar is, its what suicide bombers shout before blowing themselves up.

Athough the suicide bombers may say this, i am positive that many others have said it who have not blown up anything.

A lot of people say GERONIMOOOO before jumping out of a plane, but that doesn't mean if you say it, you're about to jump out of a plane.

so i'm not getting my monkey? :(



Orangutan or chimpanzee? Oh, we also have some baboons in stock.

Athough the suicide bombers may say this, i am positive that many others have said it who have not blown up anything.

A lot of people say GERONIMOOOO before jumping out of a plane, but that doesn't mean if you say it, you're about to jump out of a plane.

That just doesn't make sense. I'd better go now, I'llbe back arguing the conservative point tomorrow.

The one that comes to my mind is legalizing gay marriage fully.
Woo yah!

oh, that or all burberry-wearing people are to be rendered sterile. end the plague of chavs!

:) i don't mind, as long as its trained as my law requests

:) i don't mind, as long as its trained as my law requests


Ok, orangutan then. His name is Bobo, treat him well.


Edit: And when you see a brown substance in his hand, don't think; duck.

That just doesn't make sense. I'd better go now, I'llbe back arguing the conservative point tomorrow.

Not only did it make sense, it was wildly funny. Thanks Montana!

yay, bobo, he'll be my new best friend

edit: your nice, you gave me a monkey, thanks

now how to explain to people how a 17 year old got a monkey.....?

Yes, I believe it is stated in 1 Mesatecala 3:29 "Verily, I say unto thee: Blessed are the popular, and those without backbones to stand up for Me, for they shall inherit the Kingdom of God."

1 Giancarlo 1:29 "your religion is false, and I'm going for lunch"

Not only did it make sense, it was wildly funny. Thanks Montana!



Generally, we can assume those unarmed people randomly shouting "GERRRRRONIMMOOOO!!!" do not have the same intentions as the AK-47 wielding, masked people shouting "Allah Akbar!"

1 Giancarlo 1:29 "your religion is false, and I'm going for lunch"



Be sure to sit at the table with all the cool kids, Mr. Popular ;)

Ok, orangutan then. His name is Bobo, treat him well.


Edit: And when you see a brown substance in his hand, don't think; duck.


Bobo? --> http://www.urscenerecords.com/Misc/GW%20Monkey.jpg

Orangutan or chimpanzee? Oh, we also have some baboons in stock.

Psst, none of those are monkeys.

By the way, I think innocent hard-core christian women are hot.

Probably because I am none of the above.

Generally, we can assume those unarmed people randomly shouting "GERRRRRONIMMOOOO!!!" do not have the same intentions as the AK-47 wielding, masked people shouting "Allah Akbar!"

uhh...i think you missed my point.

i was showing how what someone SAYS does not indicate what they are going to DO, unless they say "I AM GOING TO DO (whatever)"

Okay, maybe a better example will make my point.

Let's say that 70% of all murderers shout an obscenity right before they kill someone. Should anyone who shouts an obscenity be arrested, held in a secret prison, without charges, indefinitely?

Psst, none of those are monkeys.

By the way, I think innocent hard-core christian women are hot.

Probably because I am none of the above.



Eh, to the layperson, all apes are considered are monkey :D


I have a feeling you're trying to tell me something >.>;;

Psst, none of those are monkeys.



well they're better than nothing

uhh...i think you missed my point.

i was showing how what someone SAYS does not indicate what they are going to DO, unless they say "I AM GOING TO DO (whatever)"

Okay, maybe a better example will make my point.

Let's say that 70% of all murderers shout an obscenity right before they kill someone. Should anyone who shouts an obscenity be arrested, held in a secret prison, without charges, indefinitely?


Normal prison, with charges, as long as the sentence permits. What can I say, I just have a thing against profanity :D

Bobo? --> http://www.urscenerecords.com/Misc/GW%20Monkey.jpg



They gave him John Kerry's chin :p

Normal prison, with charges, as long as the sentence permits. What can I say, I just have a thing against profanity :D

RIGHT! and i have a thing against terrorists.

Charge them, and give them a sentence if found guilty. but don't hold them without charges. that's the point.

Eh, to the layperson, all apes are considered are monkey :D


I have a feeling you're trying to tell me something >.>;;

to the layperson, maybe. It's still wrong. Also, baboons are neither apes nor monkeys.

All are primates.

By the way, your last post (quoted here) definitely merits a grammar nazi.

Yes. I am trying to tell you something. I wanna find out how strong your resistance to temptation is.

RIGHT! and i have a thing against terrorists.

Charge them, and give them a sentence if found guilty. but don't hold them without charges. that's the point.



And take the risk that they can be acquitted/found innocent by some moronic jury, and let them go out and blow us up?

[QUOTE=Gymoor II The Return]to the layperson, maybe. It's still wrong. Also, baboons are neither apes nor monkeys.

All are primates.

[\QUOTE]

monkeys are meant to be fun, and not argued about, now bobo is crying because of ye :mad:

Yes. I am trying to tell you something. I wanna find out how strong your resistance to temptation is.

In my experience, most evangelicals can't resist the temptation to hate the brother that is unlike themselves.

Ive changed my mind. I would outlaw INTOLERANCE.

to the layperson, maybe. It's still wrong. Also, baboons are neither apes nor monkeys.

All are primates.

By the way, your last post (quoted here) definitely merits a grammar nazi.

Yes. I am trying to tell you something. I wanna find out how strong your resistance to temptation is.



It's what happens when you stop mid-thought to revise your sentence while having ADD :D

And take the risk that they can be acquitted/found innocent by some moronic jury, and let them go out and blow us up?


So you hate american freedoms? Trial by jury is central to the american way.

In my experience, most evangelicals can't resist the temptation to hate the brother that is unlike themselves.

Ive changed my mind. I would outlaw INTOLERANCE.



No, you're confusing the inacceptance of sinful behavior with hatred.

No, you're confusing the inacceptance of sinful behavior with hatred.

intolerance is not love. ('inacceptance=intolerance)

Ive changed my mind. I would outlaw INTOLERANCE.

theres only two types of people i can't stand,
people who are intolerant
and the dutch ;)

So you hate american freedoms? Trial by jury is central to the american way.


Look, this may not sound very American but: I would take a few restrictions on the right to a fair trial of people who want us all dead, above death. Call me totalitarian, but...I like to live!!!

No, you're confusing the inacceptance of sinful behavior with hatred.
And you're confusing your biased perceptions of what is sinful with the 'ultimate truth'.

Mandatory Poetry Readings every Wednesday!!

Look, this may not sound very American but: I would take a few restrictions on the right to a fair trial of people who want us all dead, above death. Call me totalitarian, but...I like to live!!!
Don't worry...you're going to Heaven when you die....why worry?

Look, this may not sound very American but: I would take a few restrictions on the right to a fair trial of people who want us all dead, above death. Call me totalitarian, but...I like to live!!!


if it can be proven they want us dead, then okay.

if it is someone's paranoia, well, that's just not enough for me to trash the Bill of Rights.

I mean, aren't those rights what we are fighting FOR?

monkeys are meant to be fun, and not argued about, now bobo is crying because of ye :mad:

Tell bobo that I'm sorry and that an FTD banana boquet is on it's way.

Anyone who gives up liberty for security deserves neither

is that what you are doing, neorogalia? giving up liberty for security?

he's smiling now

intolerance is not love. ('inacceptance=intolerance)



So I'm guessing Proverbs 27:5 and Revelation 3:19 fall on deaf ears?

is that what you are doing, neorogalia? giving up liberty for security?


Can I disagree with Franklin without you calling me a Bolshevik dog?

So you hate american freedoms? Trial by jury is central to the american way.
agreed... if they were Americans and civlians.

I'd pass the law that all comercials must be at least 80% about the product they are advertising for. Only 20% if they contain boobies :p

The United States must be broken up since it's a monopoly.

Look, this may not sound very American but: I would take a few restrictions on the right to a fair trial of people who want us all dead, above death. Call me totalitarian, but...I like to live!!!


Tell you what. I'll be your slave if the terrorists attack Birmingham Alabama. You have to be mine if they don't.

Freedom is dangerous. If you're so scared, live in a secure undisclosed location.

A government should never be in the business of incarcerating or killing the innocent. If you remove due process, the number of innocents caught up in the system increases much more than the number of criminals removed from the streets. Also, false imprisonment doesn't seem so bad until it is you or one of your loved ones who is taken away.

And you're confusing your biased perceptions of what is sinful with the 'ultimate truth'.


God's Word is the ultimate truth.

i do not accept the bible as a source of fact. You do, i understand that. I will not argue faith.

According to the rules of debate, only sources that both sides accept as valid are acceptable for citing in the debate.

Actually, my word is the ultimate truth.

And on that note, I would like my law to ban pointless religious debate.

agreed... if they were Americans and civlians.

*cant believe JuNi doesn't see what is fundamentally wrong with that statement

*cant believe JuNi doesn't see what is fundamentally wrong with that statement



Yeah, he left out the i in "civilians" :p

"Any person failing to act to the best of his or her ability in a good faith effort to prevent the molestation, injury or death of a child under the age of 18 shall be guilty of a felony and subject to incarceration for a period up to and including life."

Let's say that all the governments of the world teamed up and allowed you to make one law that would be recognized and upholded globally. What would it be?

Phil Collins gets hunted down and murdered by gangs of feral street kids.

so, Neo, do you agree that rights are only for americans?

"Any person failing to act to the best of his or her ability in a good faith effort to prevent the molestation, injury or death of a child under the age of 18 shall be guilty of a felony and subject to incarceration for a period up to and including life."

Does that mean you would arrest anyone who does not jump in front of a bus to push a child out of the way? Not everyone has that in them.

God's Word is the ultimate truth.


I've talked to God and God said that he wishes you would stop speaking for Him because you don't know what you are talking about.

Generally, we can assume those unarmed people randomly shouting "GERRRRRONIMMOOOO!!!" do not have the same intentions as the AK-47 wielding, masked people shouting "Allah Akbar!"

That's hilarious. The original argument didn't work, so pretend like it was a different one. Carrying an AK-47 is illegal. Charge them with a crime regardless of why they shout. Shouting "Allah Akbar!" is not a crime nor should it be. They are not related and making shouting "Allah Akbar!" illegal is unnecessary and you've yet to show the necessity of it.

This law would be that there would be no transport of tabacco to the country and no smoking law

Normal prison, with charges, as long as the sentence permits. What can I say, I just have a thing against profanity :D
What if the term they shouted was 'Amen!'?

And take the risk that they can be acquitted/found innocent by some moronic jury, and let them go out and blow us up?

Ok, and now we can add outlawing a trial by jury to the list. Wow, this is quite the list your wracking up.

I've talked to God and God said that he wishes you would stop speaking for Him because you don't know what you are talking about.


God told me otherwise: 1 Corinthians 9:16 Galatians 1:8

Look, this may not sound very American but: I would take a few restrictions on the right to a fair trial of people who want us all dead, above death. Call me totalitarian, but...I like to live!!!

So all I have to do to get you off the streets without a trial is to make the claim that you're dangerous to others. No trial. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

What if the term they shouted was 'Amen!'?



While it may be a four-letter word, it doesn't fall under the category of profanity, last time I checked ;)

God told me otherwise: 1 Corinthians 9:16 Galatians 1:8


That was a long time ago. God said to get over that book and get with the times. God also said that those are the words of men and not divinely inspired.

So all I have to do to get you off the streets without a trial is to make the claim that you're dangerous to others. No trial. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.


If you can show it, then yes. Do you think they would have risked the political backfire they're getting without having just cause to do so?

While it may be a four-letter word, it doesn't fall under the category of profanity, last time I checked ;)

neither is Allah Ahkbar

That was a long time ago. God said to get over that book and get with the times. God also said that those are he words of men and not divinely inspired.



Ok, I am now going to do what I was told and let you be eternally condemned ;)

Oh please guys. God told me that eating babies was OK as long as I cooked them kosher, but does our secular government believe that? Noooooooo. Jerks.

so, Neo, do you agree that rights are only for americans?AMERICAN Rights are for Americans. The American Constitution discribes rights given by the American Government to the Citizens of the United States of America.
as you said.
So you hate american freedoms? Trial by jury is central to the american way.
thus you quantified AMERICAN FREEDOMS and AMERICAN WAY. my response is yes, for AMERICAN CIVILIANS. Clear?

neither is Allah Ahkbar



I never said it was profanity. You asked if I would lock someone up for profanity.

Ok, I am now going to do what I was told and let you be eternally condemned ;)


ANYTHING to get out of YOUR version of "Heaven" - Although you will always be allowed in my version of Heaven with the true God. We don't discriminate like that.

If you can show it, then yes. Do you think they would have risked the political backfire they're getting without having just cause to do so?


If you can show it, then yes

that's what we are saying.; if they can show (through charges and a trial) that the people being held are indeed terrorists, then we dont have a problem with their being held.

If there IS just cause, why don't they press charges???

While it may be a four-letter word, it doesn't fall under the category of profanity, last time I checked ;)

I believe he was asking "What if the majority of murderers said 'Amen!' immediately before killing someone? Would arresting someone for saying 'Amen!' then be reasonable?"

If you can show it, then yes

that's what we are saying.; if they can show (through charges and a trial) that the people being held are indeed terrorists, then we dont have a problem with their being held.

If there IS just cause, why don't they press charges???


Because many of them aren't American citizens and thus do not have our rights.

ANYTHING to get out of YOUR version of "Heaven" - ALthough youw ill always be allowed in my Version of Heaven with the true God. We don't discriminate like that.

Im with you, Sumamba

I believe he was asking "What if the majority of murderers said 'Amen!' immediately before killing someone? Would arresting someone for saying 'Amen!' then be reasonable?"


Scroll back a bit into the thread, he asked if I would throw anyone in jail for using profanity. Relevant? Maybe not, but he did specify profanity instead of threats to overthrow the government and bring harm upon its citizens.

Im with you, Sumamba


OK you can come too :D

Because many of them aren't American citizens and thus do not have our rights.

let me get this straight...you and JuNi are saying that habeus corpus is only an american right, and not a human right?

or are you saying that if they aren't americans, they dont deserve human rights?

Scroll back a bit into the thread, he asked if I would throw anyone in jail for using profanity. Relevant? Maybe not, but he did specify profanity instead of threats to overthrow the government and bring harm upon its citizens.

Scroll a wee bit farther back than that and you'll see that that discussion started with murderers using profanity before they killed people. :)

The one that comes to my mind is legalizing gay marriage fully.
Seriously, the world's most pressing issue?

Religious freedom and the right to be free of religion:). Watch them get all screwed up over THAT one!
Sinuhue, with all the suffering in the world do you really think that this is the most pressing issue?

I think I would choose to institute a global set of regulations for factory workers, including limits on working hours, the provision of a rest break, and better working conditions.

Another prime candidate would be forcing pharmaceutical companies to cut prices on the sale of AIDS drugs to Africa.

...Well if this post isn't an invitation for a Melkor Unchained objectivist onslaught, I don't know what is! Not to mention Mesatecala!

death to all right-wingers! to hell with pacifism... this is opportunism extraordinaire! :P
YES!!! Err... i mean *dons intellectual, democratic cap* it is necessary to have a variety of opinions in the world so to ensure that one ruling group doesn't become dogmatic and destructive.

all government must be democraticaly elected.
Good one. I agree.

I would pass a law making the observance of Christian morals mandatory. Not forced-Christianity, since true salvation is only attainable through willing conversion, but at least they wouldn't be able to corrupt the rest of us by attempting to legalize sinful acts :p
Sorry babe but that will have me taking up my rifle and forming a local revolutionary group.

...alright I don't actually have a rifle :(

Outlaw genocide. Simple.

Isn't it already illegal?

Interesting how God allows temptation in the world but you do not. I wonder, who's right?
Don't encourage her; you have no idea of the incredibly long Bible quotes she will type out - by heart - at the drop of a hat.

Like me for just being gay? I don't think so. You have hitleristic tendencies.
"hitleristic"? Congrats, you both made up a word and invoked Godwin's law!

Either ban liberals, or ban abortion.

liberals would be better in the long run.
hmmm. unlike Pure Metal, you seem to actually be serious. why are you so hung up on abortion? You sound more like a US Republican than a British Conservative.

Scroll back a bit into the thread, he asked if I would throw anyone in jail for using profanity. Relevant? Maybe not, but he did specify profanity instead of threats to overthrow the government and bring harm upon its citizens.


no, he's right....

Originally Posted by Poliwanacraca
I believe he was asking "What if the majority of murderers said 'Amen!' immediately before killing someone? Would arresting someone for saying 'Amen!' then be reasonable?"


thats exactly what was meant.

threats to overthrow the government and bring harm upon its citizens.


that's not what Allah Ahkbar means.

So I'm guessing Proverbs 27:5 and Revelation 3:19 fall on deaf ears?

Isn't nice when people exploit the other parts of the bible and ignore this part -

Matthew 7:1-5 1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye

Get that plank out of your eye, sinner!

Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

You've heard of that little Golden Rule, huh? This means that if you are allowed freedom of religion it should be afforded others. If others are thrown in jail for their thoughts so should you be.

That's okay though. Keep pretending like Matthew 7 doesn't exist. It's hard to be driven by your jealousy of non-believers and at the same time pretend like it's just you being pious while you accept Matthew 7, so just pretend like you never saw this. I was never here.

that's not what Allah Ahkbar means.



I know, I never said that "God is great" is profanity.

Scroll back a bit into the thread, he asked if I would throw anyone in jail for using profanity. Relevant? Maybe not, but he did specify profanity instead of threats to overthrow the government and bring harm upon its citizens.

HE said that and then I said what if the word they yelled was Amen? It's equivalent to Allah Akbar.

Isn't nice when people exploit the other parts of the bible and ignore this part -

Matthew 7:1-5 1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye

Get that plank out of your eye, sinner!

Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

You've heard of that little Golden Rule, huh? This means that if you are allowed freedom of religion it should be afforded others. If others are thrown in jail for their thoughts so should you be.

That's okay though. Keep pretending like Matthew 7 doesn't exist. It's hard to be driven by your jealousy of non-believers and at the same time pretend like it's just you being pious while you accept Matthew 7, so just pretend like you never saw this. I was never here.



Take Matthew 7:1 in context and you will learn that it is a condemnation of hypocritical judgement, not judgement in general. Your golden rule analogy fails because I'm not limiting their right to practice Christianity, just other religions.

HE said that and then I said what if the word they yelled was Amen? It's equivalent to Allah Akbar.



I never said that yelling Allah Akbar without obvious intent to assault another should be penalized! That was Blu-Tac!

let me get this straight...you and JuNi are saying that habeus corpus is only an american right, and not a human right?I'm saying that AMERICAN rights are for American citizens. just like German Rights are for German Citizens.

Now I believe there is also an International Law Standard and I am NOT familiar with that. so I am not commenting on INTERNATIONAL LAW.

now if you are saying that Habeus Corpus is only an American Right, then yes. If it's part of INTERNATIONAL LAW, then no

or are you saying that if they aren't americans, they dont deserve human rights?human rights may not be the same as AMERICAN RIGHTS. they tend to be more General.

or are you actually saying that it's ok to impose AMERICAN RIGHTS and IDEALS on other countries like Iraq?

All power to myself so I could pass any law I wished.

Your golden rule analogy fails because I'm not limiting their right to practice Christianity, just other religions.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I hate to break it to you, but "others" include...others. Not just Christians. If you would not like a Muslim to send you to jail for worshipping your God in your way, you cannot reasonably send him to jail for worshipping his God in his way.

Take Matthew 7:1 in context and you will learn that it is a condemnation of hypocritical judgement, not judgement in general. Your golden rule analogy fails because I'm not limiting their right to practice Christianity, just other religions.

You're limiting their right to practice freedom of religion. Unless you think the Absolute Truth is found through you and not through Jesus Christ. I was under the impression that I was to follow Jesus. It seems like Jesus was all for religious freedom since without it, people would never have become Christians in the first place.

I displayed the context. I can post more of the context if you like. All judgement is hypocritical. That's exactly what it says. Because all people are sinners save Jesus Christ, the only person who may judge is Christ, himself. Keep trying to spin the Truth. Isn't there a commandment that says thou shalt not lie? I wonder if that applies to lying about the Bible.