Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I made this thread in the mindset that sure, while everyone hates bush and calls him a moron and makes fun of him, president-ing is a hard job. You get to be president for the day and you can accomplish three credible feats. which three do you chose?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
You get to be president for the day and you can accomplish three credible feats.

Someone doesn't understand how the US government works.

Push congress to make legislation that no government should exist.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Push congress to make legislation that no government should exist.

Someone doesn't understand how the US government works.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Someone doesn't understand how the US government works.

Its a hypothetical and clearly you have missed the fact that he said "you can accomplish three credible feats." in his scenario you, the president, has someone got the ability to pass any law you wish- the fact that it doesn't reflect how the US Government works is irrelevant- its just a scenario to generate some discussion...don't be so pedantic.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Its a hypothetical and clearly you have missed the fact that he said "you can accomplish three credible feats." in his scenario you, the president, has someone got the ability to pass any law you wish- the fact that it doesn't reflect how the US Government works is irrelevant- its just a scenario to generate some discussion...don't be so pedantic.

Somebody doesn't understand how the US government I work.

Also, he said "three credible feats" legislation to annihilate the government is neither credible nor three things.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Somebody doesn't understand how the US government I work.

Also, he said "three credible feats" legislation to annihilate the government is neither credible nor three things.

To the stake!

its hypothetical, it has nothing to do with how you got there or how the government works, its just about what you would do. instead of trying to make a hypothetical situation look impractical, which it is already, which is why we call it hypothetical, try answering the question.

I would execute all people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Somebody doesn't understand how the US government I work.

Also, he said "three credible feats" legislation to annihilate the government is neither credible nor three things.

dude, don't be a bastard you know what he meant. Of course he knows that the President has little power but the point i believe he is trying to make is that presidentin aint easy so we should cut homeboy or hillbilly george some slack.


Personally, i think the only decision that Bush made through his reign was to give candid interviews which always destroyed his credibility. Otherwise, i believe he was just doing what his handlers suggested, much like how Britney Spears lives her life..,She does, says and goes where she is told. I don't Blame Bush for anything. That guy never should have been president but was put their, regardless. I blame the people who put him their whom ever that is remains to be discovered because i don't think it was the popular vote that did it

Any how, back on topic. If i were presidiant for a day my first order of business would be to pass a bill that disallows George Lucas from making more movie's. I would also force him to publicly flog himself with a dead baby seal for the shit that he unleashed upon the people with Indiana Jones 4.

Second order of bidness. I'd make aspertame an illegal ingredient for all consumable foods and products. That shit is worse than smoking.

Finally, my last command on the stand would be for everyone in America to jump up in the air at the exact same time on a given day. Anyone caught not jumping will be shot and killed on the spot.


My country is going to kick ass

1.) Legalise and tax drugs. A significant amount of the taxed money would go towards creating rehabilitation centres and drop in centres at a far cheaper cost to the users.

2.) Ban the teaching of intelligent design. Obviously I mean it being taught as fact, it's fine to educate children on the belief of intelligent design.

3.) Legalise gay marriage in every state.

I would legalize big boobs

1) Undue all the subprime mortgage quotas and penalties that the Democrats pushed on banks.

2) Allow welfare and unemployment to be collected for a maximum of 1 year per household.

3) Abolish laws that give unions as much power as they do to rape industries.

If I were president...

I'd do two chicks at the same time man.

heck yeah!

1. Legalization of all drugs that are beneath a certain threshold of danger/addictiveness, then have them licensed by the government or taxed for additional revenue.

2. Install significantly more liberal sex/drug education in schools to replace the current conservative programs.

3. Replace most life sentences with death sentences (there are a few exceptions in my head but i'm not going to spend the time writing them out.)

after hearing # 3 of King kandy lets never make him a mod Raz...he will execute us all...lol..

Originally posted by Jack Daniels
after hearing # 3 of King kandy lets never make him a mod Raz...he will execute us all...lol..
If I become a mod, I think you'll start worrying a bit over having made that comment.

No, I would be fair if I was a mod. As for the Death Penalty thing, it's just better economics.

1. Legalize drugs, it'd be the same thing as smoking. People wouldn't be so anxious to get them that they'd have to kill for it, they'd be able to get it whenever they wanted. Let the potheads kill themselves, dig a mass grave, and then dump them in it. Nobody cares, they screwed up their own lives by Trying it after all the propaganda we throw out there about how drugs are bad.

2. I would legalize gay marriage, but on the other side of the spectrum, there would be no such thing as a "hate crime" to gay people, at least not in the way of saying something bad to them because they are gay, in the same way as someone can say something bad to me because i'm white, they want to treat it like a genetic attribute instead of an action, then lets do it. You wouldn't have to be forced to accept them, they wouldn't be allowed to sue you if you didn't give them a job for that reason, for instance, you reject someone's application to work in your nursury because they are a gay pedofile.

3. I'd finish off the war and terrorism. I'd pull everyone out of Iraq, bush messed that up. I'd then give all airline pilots and school bus drivers and teachers and school administrators military issue side-arms. In case of an emergency concerning a shooting or a hijacking, they would be able to stop them for the good of everyone.

You would make an absolutely terrible President.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
1. Legalize drugs, it'd be the same thing as smoking. People wouldn't be so anxious to get them that they'd have to kill for it, they'd be able to get it whenever they wanted. Let the potheads kill themselves, dig a mass grave, and then dump them in it. Nobody cares, they screwed up their own lives by Trying it after all the propaganda we throw out there about how drugs are bad.

2. I would legalize gay marriage, but on the other side of the spectrum, there would be no such thing as a "hate crime" to gay people, at least not in the way of saying something bad to them because they are gay, in the same way as someone can say something bad to me because i'm white, they want to treat it like a genetic attribute instead of an action, then lets do it. You wouldn't have to be forced to accept them, they wouldn't be allowed to sue you if you didn't give them a job for that reason, for instance, you reject someone's application to work in your nursury because they are a gay pedofile.

3. I'd finish off the war and terrorism. I'd pull everyone out of Iraq, bush messed that up. I'd then give all airline pilots and school bus drivers and teachers and school administrators military issue side-arms. In case of an emergency concerning a shooting or a hijacking, they would be able to stop them for the good of everyone.



i agree. i would vote for you or run against you under the same platform.. except i hand out coke for the win..

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
You would make an absolutely terrible President.


No, his number 1 is actually an excellent idea. It should have been done decades ago.


His number 2 is an excellent idea, except the appendage.

His number 3 is a great idea, except for handing out all the guns which is totally unrelated and is a number 4, techinically.

I think his ideas are not that bad, some really good even...

1: I would Declare Martial Law

2: Arrest all Senators and Representatives for treason and seize all of there assets (To pay the Army as I promised for their helping in the coup)

3: Have the State Governors Declare me "Imperotor In Perpetuum" (Which they would out of fear of their own assets being seized)

Hey It worked For Caesar LOL

Originally posted by KidRock
1) Undue all the subprime mortgage quotas and penalties that the Democrats pushed on banks.

2) Allow welfare and unemployment to be collected for a maximum of 1 year per household.

3) Abolish laws that give unions as much power as they do to rape industries.

Actually pretty damn intuitive!

1: Request emergency powers in order to "safeguard national interests both at home and abroad".

2: Replace all laws with what I think is best for everyone due to my inherent moral and intellectual superiority.

3: Kill Pay off "Remove" Kill anyone who complains.

they could first get in power next order your marines to be your body guards..

2nd tell and point out every power behind the throne and arrest them or remove them from political office it be easy if ppl had the balls.. make sure you are on national tv.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
1. Legalize drugs, it'd be the same thing as smoking. People wouldn't be so anxious to get them that they'd have to kill for it, they'd be able to get it whenever they wanted. Let the potheads kill themselves, dig a mass grave, and then dump them in it. Nobody cares, they screwed up their own lives by Trying it after all the propaganda we throw out there about how drugs are bad.
Wow. Who would've thought I'd be able to find something to agree with you on?

The only problem I see is that some drugs are extremely addictive- maybe there should be *some* aid service...

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

2. I would legalize gay marriage, but on the other side of the spectrum, there would be no such thing as a "hate crime" to gay people, at least not in the way of saying something bad to them because they are gay, in the same way as someone can say something bad to me because i'm white, they want to treat it like a genetic attribute instead of an action, then lets do it.
Makes sense so far...
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
You wouldn't have to be forced to accept them, they wouldn't be allowed to sue you if you didn't give them a job for that reason, for instance, you reject someone's application to work in your nursury because they are a gay pedofile.
Damn. You almost made it through without saying something dumb. As it stands, people are forbidden to refuse employment based on a genetic circumstance- some people would call it racism. Being black is no less a genetic state than is being gay. So refusing a gay individual employment because they are gay would have to be frowned upon just like refusing a black guy employment because he is black.

The first phrase made me cringe a bit. Do you feel like you are being 'forced' to accept black people, too?

EDIT: Lulz @ 'gay pedophile.' I almost missed your attempt to link the two words together.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

3. I'd finish off the war and terrorism. I'd pull everyone out of Iraq, bush messed that up.
That sounds great. Can I ask your position on Afghanistan?
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I'd then give all airline pilots and school bus drivers and teachers and school administrators military issue side-arms. In case of an emergency concerning a shooting or a hijacking, they would be able to stop them for the good of everyone.
This is really a fourth act, but whatever. It isn't like the OP can do anything to you.

As president you would at least agree that there would be a strenuous training program? Flooding the public theater with weapons will only increase the danger of collateral damage. We clearly stand on opposite sides of the Gun Control issue, and I don't really want to get into it, but I would hope that you recognize the danger in an untrained individual trying to be a hero.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
1: Request emergency powers in order to "safeguard national interests both at home and abroad".

2: Replace all laws with what I think is best for everyone due to my inherent moral and intellectual superiority.

3: Kill Pay off "Remove" Kill anyone who complains.


1 and 2 = Bush?

3...I have no idea who that is supposed to parodize considering the first 2. Putin?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, his number 1 is actually an excellent idea. It should have been done decades ago.


Allowing people to kill themselves does not= a great idea.

It irks me how so any people look down on people with drug problems.

No, it's really just his sociopathic opinion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1 and 2 = Bush?

3...I have no idea who that is supposed to parodize considering the first 2. Putin?

1 = Hitler and such

2 = Everyone else on this thread

3 = Me using common sense to make 1 and 2 work

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Allowing people to kill themselves does not= a great idea.

It irks me how so any people look down on people with drug problems.

Actually, allowing people to kill themselves is a ****ing brilliant idea.


Legalizing drugs, on an unrelated note, is as well.

No, it's not.

Though I suppose that, from an economic and efficent point of view, it's brilliant.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, allowing people to kill themselves is a ****ing brilliant idea.


Legalizing drugs, on an unrelated note, is as well.

Well legalizing drugs is a good idea and it is a way of letting people kill themselves. Perhaps you've found a way of OD two birds with one needle.



I'm so clever

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
No, it's not.

Though I suppose that, from an economic and efficent point of view, it's brilliant. Also from a moral.


And every other POV...

on a moral religious standpoint it is wrong but on a economical,political mass vote it is the right thing to do...

bring on the drugs

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
on a moral religious standpoint it is wrong but on a economical,political mass vote it is the right thing to do...

bring on the drugs Well, I was talking just about moral standpoints, not religious ones, which are extremely immoral.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I was talking just about moral standpoints, not religious ones, which are extremely immoral.

Ah, yes. The evils of love and peaceful coexistence with one's fellow man. Truly a sickening concept.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also from a moral.


And every other POV...

How so? Do you think that allowing people who are under the influence of something that, very likely they are unable to control without help, to kill themselves and each other is morally sound?

well in a moral cultural america standpoint drugs seem to be ok to our society

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ah, yes. The evils of love and peaceful coexistence with one's fellow man. Truly a sickening concept. I am glad we agree on that.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Allowing people to kill themselves does not= a great idea.

It irks me how so any people look down on people with drug problems.


Ahhhhh, so you subscribe to forcing your moral beliefs on another people that don't affect you, huh?
Of course, there should always be laws in place such as public "intoxication" or driving while under the influence because that affects you and me. However, doing at home behind closed doors is just fine.



Peoole should have the freedom to do what ever they want to their bodies or do things that don't affect others. If two people want to commit suicide in their own home or in a private location, great. Let them do it.



You can't force people to do to their bodies as you'd want them. (Which is why I think abortion should be legal.)

You cannot and should not force your moral beliefs on others when the "behavior" or "act" does not affect you.









Again you SHOULD have laws in place about doing things in public.



Please see Holland for details. doped

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
How so? Do you think that allowing people who are under the influence of something that, very likely they are unable to control without help, to kill themselves and each other is morally sound? Not each other, no. Themselves, yes...that is certainly moral.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You cannot and should not force your moral beliefs on others when the "behavior" or "act" does not affect you.

Then it really comes down to what you think affects you and what places are "public".

Originally posted by King Kandy
If I become a mod, I think you'll start worrying a bit over having made that comment.

No, I would be fair if I was a mod. As for the Death Penalty thing, it's just better economics.

umm I was just kidding?..lol

Originally posted by King Kandy
3. Replace most life sentences with death sentences (there are a few exceptions in my head but I'm not going to spend the time writing them out.)

This doesn't make sense to me. There are always stories in the news about convicted inmates on Death Row being acquitted. America has more people in jail than any other country- many of them are innocent.

Death is immutable, unchangeable. If there was a mistake, we can never go back and change our mind.

On top of that, carrying out a death penalty is far more expensive than a life sentence. The appeals process drags on and on, and it can cost millions (or at least hundreds of thousands) of dollars just to get to the execution table/chair in the first place.

Life sentences are not only cheaper and less absolute, they are more punishing too. If you kill someone, they suffer for the time leading up to the event and whatever pain there is during their death. In a life sentence the person has a lifetime to live with themselves and society's scorn, not to mention their lack of freedoms/privileges.

...

I just can't see any justification for a near universal death penalty.

It's cheap. Justification enough for me.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
On top of that, carrying out a death penalty is far more expensive than a life sentence.

I thought we debunked that myth already? I thought it depended on the length of prison term? There's a threshold...I don't remember. I think it was like 15 or 20 years and then it becomes more expensive to house the inmate instead of execute after like 7-12 years.


If the execution process was stream lined, it would cost waaaaaaaaay less to execute. Too much red tape.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought we debunked that myth already? I thought it depended on the length of prison term? There's a threshold...I don't remember. I think it was like 15 or 20 years and then it becomes more expensive to house the inmate instead of execute after like 7-12 years.


If the execution process was stream lined, it would cost waaaaaaaaay less to execute. Too much red tape. If the process was stream lined though more innocents woul be killed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If the process was stream lined though more innocents woul be killed.


Good riddance.



Really, though, we had this discussion already. I said that we should only execute the truly guilty who don't rehab or show remorse. That should narrow it down.




I like the idea of killing people, though. I'm not the best of judges on that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Good riddance.



Really, though, we had this discussion already. I said that we should only execute the truly guilty who don't rehab or show remorse. That should narrow it down.




I like the idea of killing people, though. I'm not the best of judges on that. Well, of course you'd want to get the "truly guilty" but how to find out.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really, though, we had this discussion already. I said that we should only execute the truly guilty who don't rehab or show remorse. That should narrow it down.

Which is stupid. The innocent don't show remorse because they've been wrongly convicted. The guilty will show it to escape execution.

Did I mention that was a stupid basis for executing people?

Empty prision by letting off weed smokers. I'd fill them instead with hard core criminals.

People that smoke weed don't hurt anyone, in fact they help the food industry and fast foods. LOL

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ahhhhh, so you subscribe to forcing your moral beliefs on another people that don't affect you, huh?
Of course, there should always be laws in place such as public "intoxication" or driving while under the influence because that affects you and me. However, doing at home behind closed doors is just fine.



Peoole should have the freedom to do what ever they want to their bodies or do things that don't affect others. If two people want to commit suicide in their own home or in a private location, great. Let them do it.



You can't force people to do to their bodies as you'd want them. (Which is why I think abortion should be legal.)

You cannot and should not force your moral beliefs on others when the "behavior" or "act" does not affect you.









Again you SHOULD have laws in place about doing things in public.



Please see Holland for details. doped

You're speaking from ignorance, so I'll let this pass.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Wow. Who would've thought I'd be able to find something to agree with you on?

OMFG!

not government funded. the church is for charities, the government is for making sure people don't get hurt and defending the country.
Maybe this was a bit harsh, maybe put a bit of a leash on gay people so that they couldn't work in schools or nurseries or churches for obvious reasons.
no. People step on my rights though when they call me intolerant for not accepting something twisted and perverted, such as homosexuality. (black people are coo' man, i just don't like it when they constantly play the race card)
Excuse me i meant gay or pedophile. But it still stands, after forcing people to hire gay people everywhere, the next step is to force them to hire pedophiles. After all, the pedophile didn't chose to be that way any more than the homosexual did.
First of all, i am against muslims. anyone who says I should tolerate muslims hates america, as shown in this extract from wikipedia:
Muslims consider us crusaders and want to kill americans wherever and whenever they can, and have so since far before 9/11.

Afghanistan was necessary, in order to show that we are a force to be reckoned with and not to be attacked with no consequences. As for Iraq, the whole guise was that there were "weapons of mass destruction". where they are, we don't know. if they ever existed, we don't know. But as soon as we had sadaam we should have been out of there.
this is really part of my "abolish the war on terrorism" as it gives an alternative to being in iraq for 20+ more years. of course, there would be alot of training involved with giving teachers and pilots weapons to defend their classrooms and vehicles. Handling, safety, and basic tactics would all be apart of this training program. I think we all agree, however, that columbine would not have happened, had the teachers had guns, and that 9/11 would have been circumvented, had the pilots been armed.

IF I were executing the death penalty, I would just do a guillotine. Why the hell would they make it so expensive to kill someone? I understand not wanting it to be cruel, but there are no cute forms of death. Just do it.

You can't generalize all Muslims.

erect a colloseum and have them FIGHT! cheap... jk jk.

Someone's been watching Superjail

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, of course you'd want to get the "truly guilty" but how to find out.

I'm referring...

wait, see below.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is stupid. The innocent don't show remorse because they've been wrongly convicted. The guilty will show it to escape execution.

Did I mention that was a stupid basis for executing people?


I'm not sure if you guys remember what I'm talking about. I'm talking about my thoughts on the death penalty that I posted in the death penalty thread.


I'm referring to those who specifically admitted or there is undeniable evidence (video coupled with DNA or other combos of evidence that make it literally impossible to deny wrong doing) to the killings but don't show remorse or don't rehab. (You can say you're sorry but if you keep getting into fights or shanking people.....their empty words.)

In that thread, which was a response to Robtard, I said that those who could not be convicted based on 100% surety shouldn't be executed. (If there's room for doubt and they profess innocence, it's not really fair to risk executing an innocent.)



There are probably hundreds or more of people who fit the criteria that I've outlined.


Cut out the other's with the death sentence, stream line the process for what I've outlined, and you saved tax payer money will strengthening the "morality" of the death penalty.






On another note, didn't the Governer of Lousiana get some law passed to gets child rapists the death penalty or something like that?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You can't generalize all Muslims.

Sure you can.

True.

Let me rephrase. "You can't generalize Muslims like that and be correct about it...as you are wrong".

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
You're speaking from ignorance, so I'll let this pass.

???

!!!

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
!!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
You can't generalize all Muslims. Nice words you put together there.

"Can't generalise all".

Originally posted by lord xyz
Nice words you put together there.

"Can't generalise all". I assume your point is that I "generalized" all muslims as ungeneralizable, which I agree, is funny. But I elaborated on what I meant (and feel was implied all along) later.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You can't generalize all Muslims. Sure, there might be a stupid person who dabbles in muslim beliefs to be "open minded" or something like that, but true muslims want you and me dead, my freind. Its not about "hating them" or "being intolerant of their culture" or "generalizing them" they really do want you dead and always have. Its a "convert or die" religion.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Sure, there might be a stupid person who dabbles in muslim beliefs to be "open minded" or something like that, but true muslims want you and me dead, my freind. Its not about "hating them" or "being intolerant of their culture" or "generalizing them" they really do want you dead and always have. Its a "convert or die" religion. And you decide what true muslims are?


You decided that the "World Islamic Front" was the Ultimate Authority on Islamic Beliefs across the world?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Sure, there might be a stupid person who dabbles in muslim beliefs to be "open minded" or something like that, but true muslims want you and me dead, my freind. Its not about "hating them" or "being intolerant of their culture" or "generalizing them" they really do want you dead and always have. Its a "convert or die" religion.



dude you are so wrong on that comment i was accused earlier of being racist toward middle eastern ppl.. and i gotta tell you i am offended by that comment and i am not even muslim... i have also worked with them all they want is to protect their family and have a good life... the ones i met were very polite and i even went to the gym and had chow with them while i was posted in iraq...

just to let everyone know is that the government out sources many jobs to the ppl out there... hindi, muslim nigerians philipinos and iraqis.. and many others you cant generalize everyone like that.. well you can but the individual person is far to complicated to generalize or even believe that they all want the same thing

first of all, know your material before throwing accusations.



Fiqh, or islamic jurisprudence:




It says in the Koran to kill non believers to spread/expand islam.

And thus, your entire argument collapses. Besides you, a right wing christian, are certaintly one to talk. Salem Witch Trials, native american genocide. Hello?

those who do not go forth and kill non-muslims are called Hypocrites, kind of like christians who don't go out and try to help people are called "luke-warm". the ones you talk about are obviously not real muslims and do not follow the qur'an.

So you mean the majority of Muslims aren't Muslims?

haermm

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
first of all, know your material before throwing accusations.



Fiqh, or islamic jurisprudence:




It says in the Koran to kill non believers to spread/expand islam. It says in the Bible to kill gays, not have sex with menstruating women, kill your children if they disobey you, give away all your riches, pluck out your eyes and cut off your hands if you think dirty thoughts or do "wrongful" things, do not go to the churches, etc.

You don't get to decide who "real" muslims are, just as you don't get to decide what real Jews or real Christians are, Christians, Jews and Muslims that take their respective books at face value are ****ing idiots and religious fanatics...not "real" Christians, Muslims or Jews.

Interpretation is key in all three those religions...and many modern Muslims are no more uncivilized or aggressive than modern Christians, Jews, Buddshists or Atheists

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
So you mean the majority of Muslims aren't Muslims?

haermm as one who has studied Islam, i can tell you that they are false Muslims, or hypocrites, who will be thrown in hell for their inactivity during a jihad.

dude you are so wrong and missed the most important part of the quran about war and a jihad....

mohammed also said that when your enemy is defeated and driven from your land to show compassion and let them leave or som such i will try to track the specific qoute for you... it may take a while or few days so bare with me..

EDIT:

Those who are merciful have mercy shown them by the Compassionate One, if you show mercy to those who are in the earth, He Who is in heaven will show mercy to you.

Prophet Muhammad -

Originally posted by Bardock42
It says in the Bible to kill gays, not have sex with menstruating women, kill your children if they disobey you, give away all your riches, pluck out your eyes and cut off your hands if you think dirty thoughts or do "wrongful" things, do not go to the churches, etc. first, as one who as also extensively studied the bible, you have little knowledge of what you speak. the old testament, which represents the law has all of those things in it, (except the amputation one) and is how the ones who would hope to ascend must conduct themselves in order to attone for their sin. The new testament represents forgiveness, and teaches peace and goodwill to everyone instead of brutal punishment for the sinful.
I believe in all aspects of the bible. I agree that those who take it for what people say it is are idiotic. One must embrace all aspects of the bible and attempt to follow all commandments to be a true christian.
indeed, but according to their religion (there is no message of mercy or redemption) they go to hell for passiveness during a jihad and are hypocrites.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
dude you are so wrong and missed the most important part of the quran about war and a jihad....

mohammed also said that when your enemy is defeated and driven from your land to show compassion and let them leave or som such i will try to track the specific qoute for you... it may take a while or few days so bare with me..

EDIT:

Those who are merciful have mercy shown them by the Compassionate One, if you show mercy to those who are in the earth, He Who is in heaven will show mercy to you.

Prophet Muhammad - so after you steal their territory and kill their men, show mercy? that makes me feel so much better.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
first, as one who as also extensively studied the bible, you have little knowledge of what you speak. the old testament, which represents the law has all of those things in it, (except the amputation one) and is how the ones who would hope to ascend must conduct themselves in order to attone for their sin. The new testament represents forgiveness, and teaches peace and goodwill to everyone instead of brutal punishment for the sinful.

Your interpretation, I just went with what it actually said word for word.


Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I believe in all aspects of the bible. I agree that those who take it for what people say it is are idiotic. One must embrace all aspects of the bible and attempt to follow all commandments to be a true christian.

You don't though, obviously, since you are a functioning human being...you pick and mix, as it makes sense, in accordance with modern values and morals.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
indeed, but according to their religion (there is no message of mercy or redemption) they go to hell for passiveness during a jihad and are hypocrites.

Well, not all modern Muslim scholars seem to agree with you on that.

a jihad war and its finality is and can be considered by many different muslim some extremist view us in that part of the war as a jihad war....

also other many muslim scholars believe a jihad is a spiritual struggle and not a physical war with ppl

Originally posted by Bardock42
Your interpretation, I just went with what it actually said word for word.

what the bible says, my dear fellow.
I do not "pick and mix".

then not all modern muslim scholars accept the entirety of the qur'an.

the same argument can be made with the kingdom of god from how jesus described it ... it is mental spiritual plane within us... and not an actual place that ppl go after death..

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
what the bible says, my dear fellow.

Yes, I just went with what the bible says, word for word.


Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I do not "pick and mix".

Hahahah, right.


Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
then not all modern muslim scholars accept the entirety of the qur'an.

Or they interpret it differently. Who knows. I also find it weird there are just so freaking many Christian Denominations, seems silly, but that's what it is, people interpret it differently, just like you do. It's a pick and mix thing...just is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, I just went with what the bible says, word for word.
so did I. the gospel ended with the curtains to the temple being torn, signifying in jewish tradition that the law had been thrown down.



right!


1, i don't. 2. you can't interpret "seek them out where they hide" as go forth and be nice to everyone.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
so did I. the gospel ended with the curtains to the temple being torn, signifying in jewish tradition that the law had been thrown down.

So, you are really majorly interpreting, just not a bit.


Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

1, i don't. 2. you can't interpret "seek them out where they hide" as go forth and be nice to everyone.


Sure you can...I am doing it right now

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, you are really majorly interpreting, just not a bit.

no. not interpreting it at all.



Ooookay.... have fun with that?

The first thing I would do as president would be to kick Knightfall's ass. Repeatedly.
Or at least pointedly NOT appoint him as my foriegn affairs minister or internal affairs minister. Though it would be quite funny to watch him call homosexuals 'twisted and perverted' or lecture muslims on how hypocritical they are for not trying to murder 90% of the world. Being polite is overrated anyway.

See, this is where problems arise. Deciding that one's interpretation of an ancient book is objective truth and being willing to send everyone that disagrees to eternal damnation seems dangerous. Are you so sure that you are right? The fact that billions of people disagree with you (even some who also profess a deep belief in Christianity) doesn't make you hesitate at all?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Someone doesn't understand how the US government works. Was really just making a political statement there.

3 things, go out of Iraq, shut down the health business, abolish electoral college.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Was really just making a political statement there.

3 things, go out of Iraq, shut down the health business, abolish electoral college.

Right on.

Originally posted by Darth Exodus
The first thing I would do as president would be to kick Knightfall's ass. Repeatedly.
Or at least pointedly NOT appoint him as my foriegn affairs minister or internal affairs minister. Though it would be quite funny to watch him call homosexuals 'twisted and perverted' first of all, they are perverted.
having sex with your same gender is unnatural and abnormal.


I'm not lecturing them, but merely backing up my statement that to accept someone who claims to be a Muslim into our society without question is bad judgement, because the ones that don't want to kill you are considered hypocrites by their own religion.

As for my interpretation being the last word on anything, I could indeed be wrong on some things, but my "interpretation" is based on facts that come from the bible. I also do not get the last word on anything, god does.

@ xyz, shutting down the health business is a bad idea, as becoming a doctor will become a very long school process for a very very bad career. Nobody with any brain cells would do it and thus we would have a country full of idiot doctors.

Sorry Knightfa11, but I don't coverse with scum like you. Toodles.

lulz profiled.

and it is because you aren't mentally capable of debating with me...

why?

Because i'm right.

Originally posted by King Kandy

As for the Death Penalty thing, it's just better economics.

That is hilarious. Mostly because it costs more to execute someone than keep them in prison for life.

Unless of course you take China/Iran approach in which case you just shoot without a trial.

i'm for pushing them into the grand canyon and leaving their bones as a sign to those who would murder and rape.

Irony?

God I hope so.


Anyway, you would still be stuck determining the ones who actually did murder and rape, and the damage to the fragile ecosystem would probably not be worth the (dubious) value of an attempt at intimidation. Besides, the Grand Canyon is much more valuable as a tourist site (which brings economic prosperity to the surrounding areas) than as a death pit.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Irony?

God I hope so.


Anyway, you would still be stuck determining the ones who actually did murder and rape, and the damage to the fragile ecosystem would probably not be worth the (dubious) value of an attempt at intimidation. Besides, the Grand Canyon is much more valuable as a tourist site (which brings economic prosperity to the surrounding areas) than as a death pit. no... its pretty damn boring right now. imagine all of the people who would visit if it was halfway full of bleached human bones, and you could sell real skulls as souvenirs. And its easy to determin the ones who murdered and raped. We play bingo, losers die.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Anyway, you would still be stuck determining the ones who actually did murder and rape, and the damage to the fragile ecosystem would probably not be worth the (dubious) value of an attempt at intimidation. Besides, the Grand Canyon is much more valuable as a tourist site (which brings economic prosperity to the surrounding areas) than as a death pit.

Ever heard of rubber necking? Turning the Grand Canyon into a death pit would probably be economically beneficial.

edit

thinking on it if I were president I would probably do like every other pres in the last 75+ years exactly what Im told so I dont get assasinated..lol

Knightfa11, that's not okay. Don't post crap like that. This isn't 4chan.

now you look here captain rex...nah jus kiddin that was harsh I guess...better stick to pg rated boob pics knight..lol...hope that lifted the mood???anyways back on topic sort of ..who was the president that came out and admitted like 40-50 years ago that presidents no longer have control???anyone remember