They are the most similar to America, but I don't think we invaded Liberia. It would be like saying that Canada is similar to America, so we have invaded modern Canada. I'm not a history expert, so I might be wrong on this.
"UHHHHHHHHH BrotherDtard made a boo boo.
Third commandment-Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
BrotherDtard saying omg meaning oh my god is a violation of the commandment.
WHOS UNGODLY AND SATANIC NOW!!!"
"Jesus and I don't care if it was .0005 percent of the Catholic priests that BUGGERED LITTLE INNOCENT SCREAMING CHILDREN in the eye of Jesus as Yawweh God incarnate!!!"
I want the sex abusers punished, but I don't think you should blame all priests for the actions of a few.
I would want to accept the debate, but I am currently doing 2 others right now. I also don't know if I could post arguments since I have WIFI trouble and can only sometimes be on DART.
https://www.bna.com/uploadedImages/BNA_V2/Legal/Knowledge_Center/News/Litigation_and_E-Discovery/bestiality1.png states that it is legal in some states.
Both groups are extremist groups. The KKK doesn't kill people anymore in the name of their ideology anymore. They don't vandalize stuff. If they did, they would face some trouble. Dylan Roof murdered 9 black people and the KKK denounces him. The KKK won't call all their political opponents "hate groups". Because of that, I would objectively say that the KKK is more civilized and more stable then Antifa.
I know people vote according to their biases to some extent so I knew that if the debate was rated, then I would probably lose. Invading Africa currently isn't popular.
A native born person according to the law, doesn't have to do anything to be here. A foreigner has to get paperwork done. My proposed immigration policy is in the below link:
It says that foreigners should be treated just like Native born people. I'm not religious, so I don't have to believe this, but the Bible is for 100 percent open borders. There are about a dozen verses stating similar content in the Bible.
As a liberal who previously said that migration is a human right, I'm surprised your taking the side your taking. Did you change your mind on immigration?
My position is that western governments shouldn't outright reject immigration, but should have the immigrants follow a pathway to citizenship. In other words, they should come here legally.
If I appeared to roast the idea, it was a mistake. Sorry about that. I tried to rebuttal your arguments and this may have involved some copy and paste errors. I apologize or the confusion.
"The parameters should be decided mutually by the involved parties--i.e. those who engage sexual activity."
If it infringes on the rights of others, like future children by giving them STIs, then they can just get the STIs treated. I don't think abortion should be an allowed option but that's a different topic.
"Of course, preferably, the parties involved would do the other party the courtesy of informing them of any complications--i.e. STI's, etc.--but it's the still the personal responsibility of anyone who engages sexual activity to demand that screening for STI's be conducted before engagement--especially women."
Not all parties will inform the other of STIs that are had. Personal responsibility isn't always achieved since some couples don't care about spreading STIs. Why should the kids from this arrangement suffer for the responsibility of the parents? It's better if STIs were treated before marriage and starting a family. Anyone with a curable STI should get annually fined until they get treatment for it/them.
Cotius is not the best way to enjoy one's partner from an objective standpoint because of it's dangers. It's like resorting to cannibalism when there are other forms of meat available for human consumption. If the other forms are available, why select what's objectively dangerous for human beings?
Sex shouldn't be on the basis of age but should be restricted. In order to have sex, you must have you and your partner be treated of all STDs and STIs. In addition, either you must be married to your partner or use birth control precisely 100% effective. There are outer course ways to enjoy your partner without having sex.
I agree with 1967 borders except Israel gets the Gaza strip and assiliminates or deports the locals, while paying them a mutually agreed price for their land. Gaza is a threat to the Jewish state. Israel can develop and sell the land to Israelis for a profit.
It benefits the locals and America, and it spreads human rights to areas that need it. Besides, once ruled for 10 years or so, the Africans would benefit so much that they probably would be okay with US colonization.
Murder definition: kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.(https://www.bing.com/search?q=murder+definition&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN). Killing in self defense or the defense of others or your property is not murder.
Colonization saves more lives long term in the form of human rights and less poverty, at least it would be under my plan.
Trump gave them funding eventually. I would have demanded some stuff in return, like PR becoming more assiliminated and a state once Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode island merged to become 1 state.
I barely get emotional. I'm basically calling you a hypocrite. If you want non natives to get forcefully relocated back to their home continent, you should lead by example.
It was invaded. A New invasion would be nicer to the locals, not enslaving them but the colonies would be profitable by the US paying them $500 billion total in exchange for $800 Billion in natural resources. The US profits, the Africans profit. Win Win to me. The locals would get treated comparably to Puerto Ricans, who don't have a separatist majority on the island because they get treated that well.
Liberia was a place that Americans sent some of their freed slaves to. As long as the locals don't get oppressed, the colonization would be something positive for both involved parties.
If the prices and quality of the products stay constant, and the workers aren't paid less because they have no alternative, I think a monopoly in these conditions should be allowed to exist.
If monopolies are maintaining jobs and not raising prices too much, what's wrong with them existing? I think regulated monopolies ought to be allowed to exist.
They are the most similar to America, but I don't think we invaded Liberia. It would be like saying that Canada is similar to America, so we have invaded modern Canada. I'm not a history expert, so I might be wrong on this.
I can't vote on debates. Virt took away my voting privileges. RFDs are hard for me to make.
What if their church does not have a sex abuser as a priest?
Didn't Jesus say, "Love your neighbor". You aren't doing a good job of that.
I'm not catholic, but Catholics despise sex abusing priests.
Forgot to mention you. Sorry about that.
I'm going to pull an omar.
Do you have evidence BrotherDThomas?
"UHHHHHHHHH BrotherDtard made a boo boo.
Third commandment-Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
BrotherDtard saying omg meaning oh my god is a violation of the commandment.
WHOS UNGODLY AND SATANIC NOW!!!"
Nice one. I liked your comment.
I think individual justice is better then, "one rotten apple spoils the bunch" especially since the rest of the apples are fine.
I'm rooting for you because I want more conservatives in the top 10. I'm currently the only one.
Good luck. I'm rooting for you.
"Jesus and I don't care if it was .0005 percent of the Catholic priests that BUGGERED LITTLE INNOCENT SCREAMING CHILDREN in the eye of Jesus as Yawweh God incarnate!!!"
I want the sex abusers punished, but I don't think you should blame all priests for the actions of a few.
"GuitarSlinger, your Catholic faith, along with its disgusting pedophile priests THAT BUGGERED INNOCENT SCREAMING CHILDREN"
Only 6% of priests are sex abusers.
Don't make debates with 12 hours to argue. Then you might forfeit a round.
I would want to accept the debate, but I am currently doing 2 others right now. I also don't know if I could post arguments since I have WIFI trouble and can only sometimes be on DART.
What madness?
https://www.bna.com/uploadedImages/BNA_V2/Legal/Knowledge_Center/News/Litigation_and_E-Discovery/bestiality1.png states that it is legal in some states.
I hope I'll get to it. It's for some reason harder to debate now. I could see why most people take breaks.
Leave it up to the states.
Both groups are extremist groups. The KKK doesn't kill people anymore in the name of their ideology anymore. They don't vandalize stuff. If they did, they would face some trouble. Dylan Roof murdered 9 black people and the KKK denounces him. The KKK won't call all their political opponents "hate groups". Because of that, I would objectively say that the KKK is more civilized and more stable then Antifa.
I know people vote according to their biases to some extent so I knew that if the debate was rated, then I would probably lose. Invading Africa currently isn't popular.
Of course RM accepts it.
I don't know too much about boxing. You might be right, but I am not sure.
A native born person according to the law, doesn't have to do anything to be here. A foreigner has to get paperwork done. My proposed immigration policy is in the below link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EEO-QIEwB1LmUlH1haJh3n495fqmxXAQ1Phrlj3YKf0/edit
It says that foreigners should be treated just like Native born people. I'm not religious, so I don't have to believe this, but the Bible is for 100 percent open borders. There are about a dozen verses stating similar content in the Bible.
Exodus 12:49.
I will be surprised if Brother D Thomas supports the wall. The Bible is left in immigration.
As a liberal who previously said that migration is a human right, I'm surprised your taking the side your taking. Did you change your mind on immigration?
My position is that western governments shouldn't outright reject immigration, but should have the immigrants follow a pathway to citizenship. In other words, they should come here legally.
If I appeared to roast the idea, it was a mistake. Sorry about that. I tried to rebuttal your arguments and this may have involved some copy and paste errors. I apologize or the confusion.
It is reasonable because both groups get a state. The West Bank goes to Palestine.
Both the Jews and the Arabs are white according to the UN, which classifies middle Easterners as white.
Am I making sense?
"The parameters should be decided mutually by the involved parties--i.e. those who engage sexual activity."
If it infringes on the rights of others, like future children by giving them STIs, then they can just get the STIs treated. I don't think abortion should be an allowed option but that's a different topic.
"Of course, preferably, the parties involved would do the other party the courtesy of informing them of any complications--i.e. STI's, etc.--but it's the still the personal responsibility of anyone who engages sexual activity to demand that screening for STI's be conducted before engagement--especially women."
Not all parties will inform the other of STIs that are had. Personal responsibility isn't always achieved since some couples don't care about spreading STIs. Why should the kids from this arrangement suffer for the responsibility of the parents? It's better if STIs were treated before marriage and starting a family. Anyone with a curable STI should get annually fined until they get treatment for it/them.
Cotius is not the best way to enjoy one's partner from an objective standpoint because of it's dangers. It's like resorting to cannibalism when there are other forms of meat available for human consumption. If the other forms are available, why select what's objectively dangerous for human beings?
You can challenge Dr. Franklin to a debate.
Sex shouldn't be on the basis of age but should be restricted. In order to have sex, you must have you and your partner be treated of all STDs and STIs. In addition, either you must be married to your partner or use birth control precisely 100% effective. There are outer course ways to enjoy your partner without having sex.
I agree with 1967 borders except Israel gets the Gaza strip and assiliminates or deports the locals, while paying them a mutually agreed price for their land. Gaza is a threat to the Jewish state. Israel can develop and sell the land to Israelis for a profit.
Posting comment to bump it to top.
I want to accept this, but pare down on the rules.
Sorry about the all caps section. I didn't want to have to remove the text, so I left it as it was. This is not screaming.
Who owns Gaza and East Jerusalem?
It benefits the locals and America, and it spreads human rights to areas that need it. Besides, once ruled for 10 years or so, the Africans would benefit so much that they probably would be okay with US colonization.
Murder definition: kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.(https://www.bing.com/search?q=murder+definition&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN). Killing in self defense or the defense of others or your property is not murder.
Colonization saves more lives long term in the form of human rights and less poverty, at least it would be under my plan.
Trump gave them funding eventually. I would have demanded some stuff in return, like PR becoming more assiliminated and a state once Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode island merged to become 1 state.
I barely get emotional. I'm basically calling you a hypocrite. If you want non natives to get forcefully relocated back to their home continent, you should lead by example.
It was invaded. A New invasion would be nicer to the locals, not enslaving them but the colonies would be profitable by the US paying them $500 billion total in exchange for $800 Billion in natural resources. The US profits, the Africans profit. Win Win to me. The locals would get treated comparably to Puerto Ricans, who don't have a separatist majority on the island because they get treated that well.
Liberia was a place that Americans sent some of their freed slaves to. As long as the locals don't get oppressed, the colonization would be something positive for both involved parties.
I saw that you were just online. Did I change your mind?
If the prices and quality of the products stay constant, and the workers aren't paid less because they have no alternative, I think a monopoly in these conditions should be allowed to exist.
I have extreme opinions, but I doubt it's propaganda. What wrong with regulated monopolies being allowed to exist?
If monopolies are maintaining jobs and not raising prices too much, what's wrong with them existing? I think regulated monopolies ought to be allowed to exist.
I posted my reasons for the invasion in R2.