What if there is NO WAR? - Page 3

webexplorer · 07-08-2007, 08:48 PM

I am not sure if this makes sense to you.

My opinion is that many people are not smart can produce more babies when they are on welfare. Educated people somewhat produce less. What do you think?

darkdog · 07-08-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webexplorer

I am not sure if this makes sense to you.

My opinion is that many people are not smart can produce more babies when they are on welfare. Educated people somewhat produce less. What do you think?

Ever see the movie Idiocracy? It's about the very thing you're talking about. Funny flick.

Idiocracy (2006)

webexplorer · 07-08-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

Ever see the movie Idiocracy? It's about the very thing you're talking about. Funny flick.

Idiocracy (2006)

No, I haven't heard this movie.

PuyoPiyo · 07-08-2007, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacman

When immigrants from Latin America, such as Mexico, any countries from Central and South America are still growing with increase of growth rate then USA would hit roughly 400-500 million by 2050 since white (non-hispanic) population is dropping to under 50%, from roughly 70% in 2000 due massive growth of immigrant from Latin America.

It's projection but Texas, California, New Mexico, Florida and even Arizona would be more latino population than white population, also not know about other states.

Yeah the immigrants and migrants is one of thing that cause overpopulation.

PuyoPiyo · 07-08-2007, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webexplorer

I am not sure if this makes sense to you.

My opinion is that many people are not smart can produce more babies when they are on welfare. Educated people somewhat produce less. What do you think?

Haha, honestly, I think the question is quite funny. Well loser want sex more, smart people want educated more. That's all I can answer, and what I think, hmm, maybe the education system help people's population in control?

Barbaro · 07-09-2007, 08:03 PM

Ahh, totalitarian talk. We may use totalitarian if the overpopulation is out of control. Dang, I'm having Artificial Intelligence: AI flick flashback.

China is a communist country and has quite a reputation for extreme laws. The Chinese government even doesn't recognize freedom of speech. The government restricts access to the internet, newspapers, magazines, books, television, radio, film and even blog.

The Chinese government also taught uneducated Chinese people to obey and succumb Mao's philosophy and propaganda ideas in the past. Mao strongly believed that one of his principles is more people, more power. Ironically, Mao encouraged uneducated Chinese families to have as many children as possible. His principle cause of the overpopulation resulted remains dispute.

Mao was one of the most sadist leaders ever in the world history. Mao thought he was a god. Mao was responsible for more deaths than Hitler and Stalin. He was starving his own people by pay food for expanding his international and nuclear powers. Mao himself even mentioned repeatedly that he was willing to sacrifice half of his own people for his delusional dream and cause.

In the Western society, we are aware China produced the controversial birth control policy to limit one child per family. In most rural areas, they are allowed to have two children because they need them to provide hand for farmland. If they want to have another child, they are required to pay the fee. Deng Xiao Ping (former leader of China) was a strong supporter of Mao and had realized that Mao's one of his principles was a mistake, which triggered the overpopulation. Deng Xiao Ping managed to lead his people away from Mao's philosphy and produced one-child policy in early 1980s. However, he still supported more people. He believed that more people will produce more minds for notions and powers.

The government is doing a poor job taking care of the disabled. China doesn't want the whole world to know that China has its massive problems. For years, Chinese orphanages are skyrocketing. It is common they abandon disabled child or female child on the street or at the orphanage. They do not want a disabled child because they need a non disabled child in order to carry the family's name or helps supporting its parents. In the Chinese culture, they would deny a child if the gender is FEMALE. They have options: abandon her, kill her, dump her at the orphanage, or even sell her.

I've watched the documentary on various Chineses' lives on the Discovery Channel. Many Chineses are deluging constantly because of the harsh laws and traditional Chinese rules. They always expect big expectation from their children. For instance, this high-ranking policewoman is never married because she is the only child and is busy taking care of her elderly parents and working as a policewoman. Her parents wants her to get married traditionally, so she can carry her family's name in honor. Male Chineses do not want to marry her because she holds high ranking police power and it also make male Chineses feel egotistic and self-centered. Many male Chineses are chauvinist and have strong traditional views and they prefer female workers to stay home and take care of their children, so they can carry the family's name in honor.

We also should not forget protests and The Tiananmen protests in 1989 as well.

It has been very interesting to watching the Olympics committee has been pressuring on China for more media freedom and human rights. According to the Human rights watch and Council on Foreign Relations," as of December 2006, thirty-one journalists were imprisoned in China- more than any country in the world." The excellent link contains an article, Olympic Pressure on China - Council on Foreign Relations. It has many long articles, but worth reading.

I plan to rent Artificial Intelligence: AI again. *walks away*

And one thing, Webexplorer. Darkdog is correct Idiocracy is a funny flick. I'd totally recommend it.

PuyoPiyo · 07-09-2007, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barbaro

Ahh, totalitarian talk. We may use totalitarian if the overpopulation is out of control. Dang, I'm having Artificial Intelligence: AI flick flashback.

China is a communist country and has quite a reputation for extreme laws. The Chinese government even doesn't recognize freedom of speech. The government restricts access to the internet, newspapers, magazines, books, television, radio, film and even blog.

The Chinese government also taught uneducated Chinese people to obey and succumb Mao's philosophy and propaganda ideas in the past. Mao strongly believed that one of his principles is more people, more power. Ironically, Mao encouraged uneducated Chinese families to have as many children as possible. His principle cause of the overpopulation resulted remains dispute.

Mao was one of the most sadist leaders ever in the world history. Mao thought he was a god. Mao was responsible for more deaths than Hitler and Stalin. He was starving his own people by pay food for expanding his international and nuclear powers. Mao himself even mentioned repeatedly that he was willing to sacrifice half of his own people for his delusional dream and cause.

In the Western society, we are aware China produced the controversial birth control policy to limit one child per family. In most rural areas, they are allowed to have two children because they need them to provide hand for farmland. If they want to have another child, they are required to pay the fee. Deng Xiao Ping (former leader of China) was a strong supporter of Mao and had realized that Mao's one of his principles was a mistake, which triggered the overpopulation. Deng Xiao Ping managed to lead his people away from Mao's philosphy and produced one-child policy in early 1980s. However, he still supported more people. He believed that more people will produce more minds for notions and powers.

The government is doing a poor job taking care of the disabled. China doesn't want the whole world to know that China has its massive problems. For years, Chinese orphanages are skyrocketing. It is common they abandon disabled child or female child on the street or at the orphanage. They do not want a disabled child because they need a non disabled child in order to carry the family's name or helps supporting its parents. In the Chinese culture, they would deny a child if the gender is FEMALE. They have options: abandon her, kill her, dump her at the orphanage, or even sell her.

I've watched the documentary on various Chineses' lives on the Discovery Channel. Many Chineses are deluging constantly because of the harsh laws and traditional Chinese rules. They always expect big expectation from their children. For instance, this high-ranking policewoman is never married because she is the only child and is busy taking care of her elderly parents and working as a policewoman. Her parents wants her to get married traditionally, so she can carry her family's name in honor. Male Chineses do not want to marry her because she holds high ranking police power and it also make male Chineses feel egotistic and self-centered. Many male Chineses are chauvinist and have strong traditional views and they prefer female workers to stay home and take care of their children, so they can carry the family's name in honor.

We also should not forget protests and The Tiananmen protests in 1989 as well.

It has been very interesting to watching the Olympics committee has been pressuring on China for more media freedom and human rights. According to the Human rights watch and Council on Foreign Relations," as of December 2006, thirty-one journalists were imprisoned in China- more than any country in the world." The excellent link contains an article, Olympic Pressure on China - Council on Foreign Relations. It has many long articles, but worth reading.

I plan to rent Artificial Intelligence: AI again. *walks away*

And one thing, Webexplorer. Darkdog is correct Idiocracy is a funny flick. I'd totally recommend it.

Good post. Yeah China have alot of problem situations around there and some idiot phisology they have, right now they are working on it and never would ignore about it. Poor China...

webexplorer · 07-09-2007, 10:03 PM

I don't see Alex Chu's recent posts here. He probably is in a jail in South America cuz of no war.

Deafilmedia · 07-10-2007, 12:33 AM

Well before there were wars...

In the Bible, it said that God regretted that he made MAN because of wickedness and violence. But saw Noah... God didn't want to get
rid of him, cause he was good.

Ham was cursed, right?

Ham fathered Cush, Cush fathered Egypt, Canaan, and Nimrod the most powerful man on earth. Nimrod built Babylon.
And Canaan built Sodom and Gomorrah.

Shem's son Elam
From Shem's side of the family... Abraham.

Abramham's nephew Lot. Lot chose a land near Sodom.

King of Elam and other Kings were angry with the King of Sodom, King of Gomorrah and other Kings. So they had war.

This could be the 1st war.

Kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and their army were defeated.

and King of Elam took LOT as prisoner of war (POW).

Abraham had to send his army to rescue his nephew's LOT.

So Alex, but I am trying to figure out if there were no war...
Then God might get rid of PEOPLE...

I think King of Elam just wanted to avoid God's wrath by
telling the Kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and their people to stop
doing wicked things.

That is my opinion...

If there is no war, God will get rid of HUMANS.

OR MAYBE WE ARE HAVING WARS BECAUSE OF NOAH'S CURSE!

Deafilmedia · 07-10-2007, 12:49 AM

So if Africans, because of Ham, are cursed.

Why European Americans (Japheth) are having war with Arab (Shem)? Iraq's War.

Aint we suppose to get along?

Well I am a little bit of Ham, mix with Japheth....

Or maybe White Americans are all mix with Ham because African Americans live here is USA and... Arab (Shem) is suppose to attack us.

Europe is doing okay. But maybe Americans are being curse by Noah, look at the Hispanics, they got some Ham in them too.

Deafilmedia · 07-10-2007, 12:57 AM

Well.. USA is *gulp* is kinda like Egypt, Sodom, and Babylon.

*thinking*

I think European Americans, if they aren't mix with any Ham (Africans' blood)
might be safer if they go back to Europe...

I don't know, I guess I am being silly... or maybe *gulp*.

Sheila · 07-10-2007, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deafilmedia

Well before there were wars...

In the Bible, it said that God regretted that he made MAN because of wickedness and violence. But saw Noah... God didn't want to get
rid of him, cause he was good.

Ham was cursed, right?

Ham fathered Cush, Cush fathered Egypt, Canaan, and Nimrod the most powerful man on earth. Nimrod built Babylon.
And Canaan built Sodom and Gomorrah.

Shem's son Elam
From Shem's side of the family... Abraham.

Abramham's nephew Lot. Lot chose a land near Sodom.

King of Elam and other Kings were angry with the King of Sodom, King of Gomorrah and other Kings. So they had war.

This could be the 1st war.

Kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and their army were defeated.

and King of Elam took LOT as prisoner of war (POW).

Abraham had to send his army to rescue his nephew's LOT.

So Alex, but I am trying to figure out if there were no war...
Then God might get rid of PEOPLE...

I think King of Elam just wanted to avoid God's wrath by
telling the Kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and their people to stop
doing wicked things.

That is my opinion...

If there is no war, God will get rid of HUMANS.

OR MAYBE WE ARE HAVING WARS BECAUSE OF NOAH'S CURSE!

It's a fairy tale.

Face it, there are too many people on earth with too many different views and not enough room. THAT'S why there is war. It is inevitable. I don't agree with it all the time, but that doesn't mean it's not necessary.

Calphool · 07-10-2007, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheila

It's a fairy tale.

Face it, there are too many people on earth with too many different views and not enough room. THAT'S why there is war. It is inevitable. I don't agree with it all the time, but that doesn't mean it's not necessary.

I disagree. I'm of the opinion that it's almost never "necessary". Think about it this way. So let's say you live out alone by yourself somewhere. You obviously don't have a dispute with yourself, so there's no possibility of war with anyone. Then, a neighbor moves in across the street from you. Technically, there's a possibility of war, but usually you get to know him/her, you respect him/her because you know him/her, so no war starts. Then, another neighbory moves in next to you. Again, you meet him/her, make friends, and everybody is still getting along. Over time, as people get more and more crowded and more and more people move in, the burden of making sure everyone is talking to everyone else (basically "politics") becomes harder and harder to manage. So, it's not "necessary" that people make war, but it becomes harder and harder to prevent, because not everyone talks openly and honestly with each other.

That's why diplomacy is very important (and underrated). Diplomacy is just a fancy word for "talking with your neighbors". If everybody talks, the chances for war are reduced. You don't have to always agree, but if you keep talking, chances are you won't start abusing one another, and eventually, people are usually able to come to some kind of agreement. It's not always possible (Hitler for example), but often I think it is. We should be very careful about going to war. It should always be a last resort for a democracy. Bush's preemptive war strategy is completely flawed in that regard. It presumes that somehow we have a right to invade other countries because we're scared of them. That's a ridiculous proposition, and if everybody played by that rule, we'd have non-stop war everywhere.

Calphool · 07-10-2007, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

My bad. Sorry about that. See the very end of my last post.

I'm wasn't talking about WWI, Iraq, or Afghanistan. I didn't bring up WWII to justify any war in particular other than WWII. I brought it up to respond to Aleser's universal statement about war heroes being murderers who should go to jail. The problem with such broad, unqualified statements is it takes just one real-life example contradicting that statement to discredit it.

I'm sorry to hear about all the hardships your family went through. The first half of the 19th century was no fun for Europe. I'm not trying to justify the silly things that caused WWI or led to Hitler's rise in Germany. However, by 1938, they had all happened and Europe had an evil, brutal, ambitious dictator to deal with. The only thing that mattered at that point was what to do about it. Chamberlain proved that peaceful negotiations wouldn't work with Hitler. The only two options left were to fight back against Hitler or surrender and let him take over Europe. Both of those options would result in much death and suffering. There simply was no way to avoid death and suffering. I was basically asking Aleser which option she would choose.

Yet, we can't just sweep WWI under the rug. WWII was directly related to the stupid way WWI started and then ended. If our great grandparents had had the sense to sit down and talk in 1914 and negotiate rather than puff themselves up full of nationalistic, imperialistic, militaristic nonsense, WWII would never have happened, because the Nazis would never have come to power. So, I agree that once you've got a giant puss filled boil (Hitler-like dictator), you have to lance it (go to war), but the bigger question is: Why didn't you wash your bum better in the first place (work with other friendly countries cooperatively, before there's a problem), so you didn't end up with a giant boil? That relates to what we're experiencing today with Iraq as well. To some degree, the USA (my country) is acting like the Axis or Allies of WWI. We've puffed outselves up like we have the right to invade other countries preemptively, when we don't (by virtue of our very own standards of right and wrong). As my grandma used to say, two wrongs don't make a right. Sadam was bad, but invading his country didn't put us in the right. Sadam was not Hitler -- at best he was a Manuel Noriega type character.

webexplorer · 07-10-2007, 11:52 PM

It is very simple that the Senators and House of Representatives are afraid to meet the enemies so they rather enforce other people to join the army because they don't know them which is easier for them. Senators and HR sit on a chair and watch the news, and they don't care about people who died in the wars because they are not their family period. It is so simple that they put a sad mask on their face to make look pathetic. The armies deal with their friends' death, and they are traumatic. Many armies never forgive the president what he had done them. Some of the armies never want to vote any president in the future because they are victimized.

Near end at the war, some Senators and HRs came to visit there. They did not go there at the beginning or in the middle of the war.

It would be nice that there is no war. I think that Calphool is right. (See Calphool's post.)

Sheila · 07-10-2007, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calphool

I disagree. I'm of the opinion that it's almost never "necessary". Think about it this way. So let's say you live out alone by yourself somewhere. You obviously don't have a dispute with yourself, so there's no possibility of war with anyone. Then, a neighbor moves in across the street from you. Technically, there's a possibility of war, but usually you get to know him/her, you respect him/her because you know him/her, so no war starts. Then, another neighbory moves in next to you. Again, you meet him/her, make friends, and everybody is still getting along. Over time, as people get more and more crowded and more and more people move in, the burden of making sure everyone is talking to everyone else (basically "politics") becomes harder and harder to manage. So, it's not "necessary" that people make war, but it becomes harder and harder to prevent, because not everyone talks openly and honestly with each other.

Everything you said here is with the assumption that these people CAN get along and are able to talk and become friends. I know that if Bush moved in next to me, there would be issues and there is nooooooo way that I could "sit down and talk my problems out" with him. There are some people that no matter what, cannot talk things out or be civil. Unfortunately, some of the world's leaders are this kind of person. Sure, I would like to agree with you, but I know that not everyone is able to do this. I wish like hell it could be that way, but it's just not possible with all the diversity there is now.

Quote:

That's why diplomacy is very important (and underrated). Diplomacy is just a fancy word for "talking with your neighbors". If everybody talks, the chances for war are reduced. You don't have to always agree, but if you keep talking, chances are you won't start abusing one another, and eventually, people are usually able to come to some kind of agreement. It's not always possible (Hitler for example), but often I think it is. We should be very careful about going to war. It should always be a last resort for a democracy. Bush's preemptive war strategy is completely flawed in that regard. It presumes that somehow we have a right to invade other countries because we're scared of them. That's a ridiculous proposition, and if everybody played by that rule, we'd have non-stop war everywhere.

I agree fully that war should be the LAST RESORT. Maybe getting the actual definition from a reliable source (i.e. NOT the president) would help clear things up. And the way things are looking, this little "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is just another non-stop war. Believe me, I am the last person to support ANYTHING Bush has done for the last seven years, so I'm glad we are on the same page about that.

purplecatty · 07-11-2007, 03:32 AM

As population grows
More car accidents
More diseases
More chemical accidents
More starving people
More pollutions
More murderers
More sick cults (like Waco, Jim Jones, ect)

list goes on.. if there were no wars...

What's difference it make if we have no wars, people dies from disease, accident, Power of Nature, Comet or big Meteroite falls into Earth, ect..

Remmy Black Death, Bolusim, Tubeloscis (spelling), and rest of congious diseases that would kills thousands or even million people w/o wars.

As Population grows, cities get crowded, every land overflowed ect. There's no room to escape from disease or distasters.

So.. You don't want War, then there's alternative of war...

It's just one way or another.. Population still be in check.. Simple as is..

Catty

PuyoPiyo · 07-11-2007, 03:35 AM

Interesting thoughts, Catty.

Sheila · 07-11-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purplecatty

As population grows
More car accidents
More diseases
More chemical accidents
More starving people
More pollutions
More murderers
More sick cults (like Waco, Jim Jones, ect)

I see war as a quick way for "population control." (For the record, I don't LIKE this view, but I see it as a possibility)

Same thing I think about homosexuality. It's mother nature's way of slowing down the birthrate.

dreama · 07-11-2007, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calphool

Yet, we can't just sweep WWI under the rug. WWII was directly related to the stupid way WWI started and then ended. If our great grandparents had had the sense to sit down and talk in 1914 and negotiate rather than puff themselves up full of nationalistic, imperialistic, militaristic nonsense, WWII would never have happened, because the Nazis would never have come to power. So, I agree that once you've got a giant puss filled boil (Hitler-like dictator), you have to lance it (go to war), but the bigger question is: Why didn't you wash your bum better in the first place (work with other friendly countries cooperatively, before there's a problem), so you didn't end up with a giant boil? That relates to what we're experiencing today with Iraq as well. To some degree, the USA (my country) is acting like the Axis or Allies of WWI. We've puffed outselves up like we have the right to invade other countries preemptively, when we don't (by virtue of our very own standards of right and wrong). As my grandma used to say, two wrongs don't make a right. Sadam was bad, but invading his country didn't put us in the right. Sadam was not Hitler -- at best he was a Manuel Noriega type character.

Hitler was deffinately an exception. I do wonder if we'd simply hired someone to assasinate Hitler instead of going to war with him that would have saved a lot of lives.

dreama · 07-11-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheila

There are some people that no matter what, cannot talk things out or be civil.

My last neibour was like that. He complained about the noise of my chinchilla excercise wheel. I complained about a lot of other things such as putting concrete slabs against my shed door, turning the path into an asault course, leaving food and broken glass lying around in Jilli's garden. That kind of thing. No I didn't drop a bomb on him (even though the thought did have it's apeal). I just ignored him and was glad when he went to jail for dealing in cocain.

BearBeauty · 07-11-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texan Guy

Come on, warriors and politicans are suppose to be separate. Many politicans, but the combat veterans like McCain or Kerry, doesn't know how to control the war.

How the hell do you expect war and politics to be separate? Right now, we've got the president as our commander in chief for the military here in the US, SO politics does get involved in war.

And in every country, the highest ranking executive no matter if it be king, president, parliament, whatever, is that country's commander in chief of their Military. So you honestly have to admit politics plays a large role in military life.

Sheila · 07-11-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BearBeauty

How the hell do you expect war and politics to be separate? Right now, we've got the president as our commander in chief for the military here in the US, SO politics does get involved in war.

And in every country, the highest ranking executive no matter if it be king, president, parliament, whatever, is that country's commander in chief of their Military. So you honestly have to admit politics plays a large role in military life.

And all of these leaders have some deep religious beliefs that may not coexist with other religions. What war EVER has not been involved with politics or religion?

07-09-2007, 08:03 PM	#66 (permalink)
Barbaro doomsday clock's clicking Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: dæləs Posts: 305	Ahh, totalitarian talk. We may use totalitarian if the overpopulation is out of control. Dang, I'm having Artificial Intelligence: AI flick flashback. China is a communist country and has quite a reputation for extreme laws. The Chinese government even doesn't recognize freedom of speech. The government restricts access to the internet, newspapers, magazines, books, television, radio, film and even blog. The Chinese government also taught uneducated Chinese people to obey and succumb Mao's philosophy and propaganda ideas in the past. Mao strongly believed that one of his principles is more people, more power. Ironically, Mao encouraged uneducated Chinese families to have as many children as possible. His principle cause of the overpopulation resulted remains dispute. Mao was one of the most sadist leaders ever in the world history. Mao thought he was a god. Mao was responsible for more deaths than Hitler and Stalin. He was starving his own people by pay food for expanding his international and nuclear powers. Mao himself even mentioned repeatedly that he was willing to sacrifice half of his own people for his delusional dream and cause. In the Western society, we are aware China produced the controversial birth control policy to limit one child per family. In most rural areas, they are allowed to have two children because they need them to provide hand for farmland. If they want to have another child, they are required to pay the fee. Deng Xiao Ping (former leader of China) was a strong supporter of Mao and had realized that Mao's one of his principles was a mistake, which triggered the overpopulation. Deng Xiao Ping managed to lead his people away from Mao's philosphy and produced one-child policy in early 1980s. However, he still supported more people. He believed that more people will produce more minds for notions and powers. The government is doing a poor job taking care of the disabled. China doesn't want the whole world to know that China has its massive problems. For years, Chinese orphanages are skyrocketing. It is common they abandon disabled child or female child on the street or at the orphanage. They do not want a disabled child because they need a non disabled child in order to carry the family's name or helps supporting its parents. In the Chinese culture, they would deny a child if the gender is FEMALE. They have options: abandon her, kill her, dump her at the orphanage, or even sell her. I've watched the documentary on various Chineses' lives on the Discovery Channel. Many Chineses are deluging constantly because of the harsh laws and traditional Chinese rules. They always expect big expectation from their children. For instance, this high-ranking policewoman is never married because she is the only child and is busy taking care of her elderly parents and working as a policewoman. Her parents wants her to get married traditionally, so she can carry her family's name in honor. Male Chineses do not want to marry her because she holds high ranking police power and it also make male Chineses feel egotistic and self-centered. Many male Chineses are chauvinist and have strong traditional views and they prefer female workers to stay home and take care of their children, so they can carry the family's name in honor. We also should not forget protests and The Tiananmen protests in 1989 as well. It has been very interesting to watching the Olympics committee has been pressuring on China for more media freedom and human rights. According to the Human rights watch and Council on Foreign Relations," as of December 2006, thirty-one journalists were imprisoned in China- more than any country in the world." The excellent link contains an article, Olympic Pressure on China - Council on Foreign Relations. It has many long articles, but worth reading. I plan to rent Artificial Intelligence: AI again. walks away And one thing, Webexplorer. Darkdog is correct Idiocracy is a funny flick. I'd totally recommend it. __________________ We know what we are but not what we may be. -Author:Shakespeare

07-11-2007, 03:35 AM	#78 (permalink)
PuyoPiyo My Property!! >:( Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Fourth Plain Village WA Posts: 5,182	Interesting thoughts, Catty. __________________ Note: Not credit by myself.

07-08-2007, 08:48 PM	#61 (permalink)
webexplorer I'm listening to everyone Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: New England Posts: 3,474	I am not sure if this makes sense to you. My opinion is that many people are not smart can produce more babies when they are on welfare. Educated people somewhat produce less. What do you think?

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

07-09-2007, 10:03 PM	#68 (permalink)
webexplorer I'm listening to everyone Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: New England Posts: 3,474	I don't see Alex Chu's recent posts here. He probably is in a jail in South America cuz of no war.

07-10-2007, 12:33 AM	#69 (permalink)
Deafilmedia Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,579	Well before there were wars... In the Bible, it said that God regretted that he made MAN because of wickedness and violence. But saw Noah... God didn't want to get rid of him, cause he was good. Ham was cursed, right? Ham fathered Cush, Cush fathered Egypt, Canaan, and Nimrod the most powerful man on earth. Nimrod built Babylon. And Canaan built Sodom and Gomorrah. Shem's son Elam From Shem's side of the family... Abraham. Abramham's nephew Lot. Lot chose a land near Sodom. King of Elam and other Kings were angry with the King of Sodom, King of Gomorrah and other Kings. So they had war. This could be the 1st war. Kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and their army were defeated. and King of Elam took LOT as prisoner of war (POW). Abraham had to send his army to rescue his nephew's LOT. So Alex, but I am trying to figure out if there were no war... Then God might get rid of PEOPLE... I think King of Elam just wanted to avoid God's wrath by telling the Kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and their people to stop doing wicked things. That is my opinion... If there is no war, God will get rid of HUMANS. OR MAYBE WE ARE HAVING WARS BECAUSE OF NOAH'S CURSE!

07-10-2007, 12:49 AM	#70 (permalink)
Deafilmedia Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,579	So if Africans, because of Ham, are cursed. Why European Americans (Japheth) are having war with Arab (Shem)? Iraq's War. Aint we suppose to get along? Well I am a little bit of Ham, mix with Japheth.... Or maybe White Americans are all mix with Ham because African Americans live here is USA and... Arab (Shem) is suppose to attack us. Europe is doing okay. But maybe Americans are being curse by Noah, look at the Hispanics, they got some Ham in them too.

07-10-2007, 12:57 AM	#71 (permalink)
Deafilmedia Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,579	Well.. USA is gulp is kinda like Egypt, Sodom, and Babylon. thinking I think European Americans, if they aren't mix with any Ham (Africans' blood) might be safer if they go back to Europe... I don't know, I guess I am being silly... or maybe gulp.

07-10-2007, 11:52 PM	#75 (permalink)
webexplorer I'm listening to everyone Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: New England Posts: 3,474	It is very simple that the Senators and House of Representatives are afraid to meet the enemies so they rather enforce other people to join the army because they don't know them which is easier for them. Senators and HR sit on a chair and watch the news, and they don't care about people who died in the wars because they are not their family period. It is so simple that they put a sad mask on their face to make look pathetic. The armies deal with their friends' death, and they are traumatic. Many armies never forgive the president what he had done them. Some of the armies never want to vote any president in the future because they are victimized. Near end at the war, some Senators and HRs came to visit there. They did not go there at the beginning or in the middle of the war. It would be nice that there is no war. I think that Calphool is right. (See Calphool's post.)

07-11-2007, 03:32 AM	#77 (permalink)
purplecatty The Harley Guy Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Center of the USA Posts: 1,409	As population grows More car accidents More diseases More chemical accidents More starving people More pollutions More murderers More sick cults (like Waco, Jim Jones, ect) list goes on.. if there were no wars... What's difference it make if we have no wars, people dies from disease, accident, Power of Nature, Comet or big Meteroite falls into Earth, ect.. Remmy Black Death, Bolusim, Tubeloscis (spelling), and rest of congious diseases that would kills thousands or even million people w/o wars. As Population grows, cities get crowded, every land overflowed ect. There's no room to escape from disease or distasters. So.. You don't want War, then there's alternative of war... It's just one way or another.. Population still be in check.. Simple as is.. Catty