Mudkipz2's Waterfall
does are fundamental belief of the allowance for life, liberty, and pursuit of happens violate religious freedom? does fighting militant islmofacism violate religious freedom? the answer is yes. some religions or religious ideologies must be fought because they violate individual freedoms.
the fact that on 9/11 rememberence day there was a anti western pro militant parade by Muslims. the fact that the building was hit by militant terrorist Muslims. and the fact that most Muslims want sharia rule in America which is anti democratic and inhuman makes me believe that the mosque there would only be rubbing salt in a wound.
however there are moderate Muslims and people who disagree with the majority of Muslim middle easterners who support jihad and violence against western nations. so i believe there should be a compromise. if the state allows the mosque. then let it be built. if after review by 3erd party members of the mosque being supportive of the magnificent 11 or 9/11 terrorist and implements sharia and jihadist ideologies into its members and violence to outsiders. i say then close the mosque down.
so its simple. warn the Muslims that one out of line move will result in the termination of your mosque. end of discussion.
yes and no, but your anti military argument has made me disputed you.
why don't we shrink the military, then things would even out?
go tell Poland, France, and U.K of WW2 your idea, and go tell Israel of today your idea.
you'll see how a smaller military would be the worst thing to do.
and devestating our planet? becouse i forgot that america is number one in destroying our planet. not communist chinna ( a liberal state) who out puts the most co2 in the atmosphere and destroys the most rivers/lakes.
and i forgot america is number one in being selfish, (im supposing your later part of the sentince, to consver a little is so eveil, refers to us america), we have not only been number one in sending humintatian aid to the world, we have brought the most stability to countires of the world also, and i forgot that were out on the front lines in every attack on freedom while the U.N bichtes from the side lines about how were doing it wrong. yeah were the most destructive and selfish.
while i disputed you for sakes argument, liberals really are dumb. i mean no counter response that is reasonable to yours? when i my self have given the best so far, and i am conservative.
any way i like your agenda. keep pissing on liberals.
arguments like this make conservatives look bad. i mean wtf is this about. removed from society, if we did that we would be as bad as Hitler.
i am not liberal, i am conservative, but i must argue for reason when things like this our put up (i know this is just a fake fun debate most likely, but still what the hell, ima argue it). Hitler was a Conservative fascist. he was religious, believed in class structure, and supported family values. tyranny goes both ways on the political structure.
ur wrong joecavalry. and why insult some one when your wrong. let me break it down to you guys. on the political ideology spectrum, you have liberalism, which is then followed by communism. on the right you have conservatism followed by fascism or authoritarianism. however, and this is only where your opinion of Hitler being a liberal holds some truth, is that his Nazi party, was socialist minded. but Mussolini, the inventor of fascism was ultra right minded, how so, well maybe the definition well show u,(fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum). so u two need to get ur facts straight and not look like fools when u try to insult some one.
9000 want? spammed remarks containing ;) those. and for "Well then.... you're in the wrong debate. This is my debate" your right it is your debate, but its sad not even the creator can stay on topic about his own debate, instead you go off about dancing and dumb remarks about like that. and for your point level, I'm very skeptic you made all of those, you probably took over a friends account who had around that many points.
a world government would not work. in essence a singe nation controlling or heavily political influencing other nations does not work. we are to diverse. Egypt and Syria tried this before. the joint gov was set up in Cairo. the Syrians got made of the place it was set up in and felt the Egyptians were making them a peon. they pretty much were, so the joint gov fell. when Soviet Communist tried to annex Asian provinces and Afghanistan into its nation if ultimately fell due to too many differences that a complete totalitarian gov could not control. so if the most feared gov besides Nazism could not control a diverse group of people and ideologys, how could a free independent democratic nation control each other with out slipping into a totalitarian gov or authoritarian gov which would impede against are democratic values.?
first off all your argument is irrelevant. the government he protested peacefully against was not a terrorist group, it was great Briton with people in London who supported Gandhi. we are talking about terrorist, negotiating with a terrorist just shows they can get their way. if your child screams and yells for a cookie, do you give it to him? no he would think he could do it again to get a cookie later. if a terrorist group abducts or blows up a building then asks for money, land, or some other thing, do we give it to them? no they will do it again every time if they don't get their way. you must use force and knowledge to kill terrorist. not agree or negotiate terms with them after they slaughter innocents.
