Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GODKING

  1. Funny, I've never heard you, or a good number of other Christians for that matter, criticise the fundamentalist Christians who blow up abortion clinics or picket soldiers' funerals. I don't remember the last time I heard a Christian talk about how they hate what either Young Earth Creationism of the Catholic Church of old has done to discredit the word "Christian". Does your and their silence speak equal volumes, or is there a double standard I'm not aware of?



    Neither do Christians.



    I eagerly await the Pope's upcoming speech finally speaking out against anti-abortionist bombings and the like.



    Practise before you preach, please.



    Do you assume that because I live in Canada I have little to no access to American opinions? Because that's an incredibly ignorant and fallacious belief. Not only are American news and opinion stations broadcast on Canadian television just as they are on American, but I also happen to have a good number of online contacts/friends who live all over the States, from California to Georgia to New York to Washington.


    I also don't see where I ever said that Americans didn't care. I simply said that they're not the only ones who care.



    Wrong. The attack on the World Trade Centre was aimed at the western world and its typically/traditionally Christian values. The target happened to be on American soil because, whether much of the western world likes it or not, America is and has for years been the face of the west.



    A fair point. So are you saying that I should start protesting the existence of Churches in neighbourhoods where abortion clinics have been bombed? Should I complain that there are Christian churches built on countless sights of violence and hate throughout Europe and western Asia? You're upholding a double standard. Just because there are some Christians out there who take extreme action against what they believe to be wrong doesn't mean that you or any other Christian shares or agrees with that ideology.



    Yes, because you just know that Al Qaeda operatives are going to be incredibly eager to surround themselves with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, etc. in a community centre in the Land of the Heathen. If you ask me, that's a problem that solves itself. :rolleyes:



    Are you under the impression that there's a membership card or something? You think they'll have a secret knock, or a password or something? How exactly do you see a public community centre disallowing entry to non-Muslims?



    No, not all Christians will go. But if you don't want to go simply based on the fact that it happens to contain a Muslim prayer room in its 13 floors of pools, lecture halls, restaurants, etc., then I'm afraid I have to inform you of my policy against discussing such things with ideologues.


    First off i never said that you didn't have access to American media of anykind. All i said is that you try to talk for many american when you don't live here. Plus if you watch the AMERICAN media most americans are completely againest this. and you said and i quote "many of your fellow americans" so indeed you did try to speak for people you do no known or have heard their opinions. Plus you may have friends from all over the world yes so do i but i doubt you talked about this with them. (then your going to reply to this yes i have)


    You still didn't answer my question did you think 9/11 had the same affect on you as someone who lives in America? You totally ignored that question. And the fact that they attack America wasn't only because of their christian values that is were you are wrong! They also attack american because we tried to spread Democracy and freedom throughout the world. That is why the US is the face of the Western World. So get your facts straight too ;)


    If you feel like protesting a Church no matter where it is thats your freedom. However if the people didnt want that there dont you think the government would have done something or the people protest. Just because I don't believe in how Christian extremist handle the situation doesn't mean i don't believe in what they represent. That the same with the Muslims just because they all dont go to the extremes like some muslims to do what they Bible or Kran says doesnt mean they don't believe in what they represented.


    You said that Al Queda operatives wont want to be around the jew, christians, etc. well don't you think that this is a prefect target for a bombing or something of that nature because they have all the people they hate in a sacred mosque/ community center that probably would piss them off

  2. You realize that most of their tanks are outdated and from the old Soviet Union era? The people there also live in poverty, starvation, and in terrible living conditions? Believe me, the US and South Korea may not have "numerical" advantages over North Korea, but they certainly have technological advantages and a population that doesn't fear their own country...which in this day and age...is really all that matters for a large scale war like this could become.


    That was a quote from the http://www.state.gov website so the government obviously thinks that they arent too outdated.


    Please read more about the Korean War and the US obligation to South Korea. If South Korea is attacked it isn’t a question if the US decides to get involved. The US will be involved.


    The only region the US may be faster in helping to defend would be the United Kingdom.


    We may have obligation to help them, but nothing says to what extent. Our help maybe giving them guns. If we do supply soldiers if cant be that many because of all the troops in Afgahanistan and whats left in Iraq

  3. I completely agree with you. I totally "get" the "extremist" vs. normal everyday Muslim who wants to live in peace. But you know...the biggest problem with it all is that the normal, peaceful Muslims don't speak up or cry afoul about their extremist counterparts until they are accused. Their silence speaks volumes. I'm all for the mosque because it's a free country and I can be the bigger man and show them that things like that don't bother me, but I think the biggest problem lies deeper within the Muslim culture. I don't if most Muslims silently applaud the work of the extremists, but they certainly don't oppose it with a loud voice. IF they truly do stand against the extremists, they need to stand up against them now, and with a strong effort. I'm not saying go to war or try and oust them or whatever, I'm saying, their leaders need to take an active role in explaining to the people that normal Muslims HATE the extremists as much as everyone else...rather than them waiting for a 60 Minutes interview to say that "oh, well, we don't support them...most of us are nice, accepting people." That's all well and good...but they need to show us that they hate the extremists just like everyone else because they sure haven't shown that yet.


    Thats just it if they HATED them than they would say something. Have you every considered that this Muslims are proud of what these other Muslism extremist have done. I can't say that this is true because i am not muslim, but it sounds pretty logical. You can't say that they hated them unless your muslims and thats how you feel or they have said something to the public, but i bet your not muslim and they havent said anything to the public like you.


    Funny, I've never heard you, or a good number of other Christians for that matter, criticise the fundamentalist Christians who blow up abortion clinics or picket soldiers' funerals. I don't remember the last time I heard a Christian talk about how they hate what either Young Earth Creationism of the Catholic Church of old has done to discredit the word "Christian". Does your and their silence speak equal volumes, or is there a double standard I'm not aware of?



    Neither do Christians.



    I eagerly await the Pope's upcoming speech finally speaking out against anti-abortionist bombings and the like.



    Practise before you preach, please.


    I actually did say something about christian extremist. Plus people are talking about that court case of those christian extremist picketing dead soldiers funeral. We talked about it at my school

  4. No, I bloody well wouldn't. Because I, like many of your own fellow Americans, am actually aware of the difference between a proper Muslim and a fundamentalist/extremist. It wasn't Islam that destroyed the World Trade Centre. It wasn't Islam that killed ~3000 people - not all of whom, I feel compelled to point out, where Americans. It wasn't Islam that destroyed the community, the buildings, the sidewalks, or anything at all. It was extremists. Painting the entire faith with the same brush as Al Qaeda is an insult, kid, no two ways about it.


    These people don't want to "expand their Church's community center". And people from their religion did not destroy the community. A group of people used their religion as an excuse to lash out against people they hated. And now these true Muslims want to build an inter-faith building of peace and respectful tolerance that would be open to everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation. If that isn't a slap in the face of Islamic extremism, I don't bloody well know what is.


    I'd also like to just say that, whether you meant offence or not, I am in fact offended by the implication that I can't mourn the loss of American lives because I'm Canadian. The events of September 11th shook the whole world, not just your little corner of it.


    Well if you assist and you said like many americans how do you know how AMERICANS feel unless you asked them? This topic wouldn't be in the news if americans didnt care. You cant agrue that. I do not say that I speak for all American ethier I speak for me and people who i know their opinion.


    I meant no offense to you being Canadian. What i meant to say is that you living in a different country than where 9/11 took place can you honestly say that it had the same effect on you than someone who lives in the American. I understand that 9/11 had shockwaves on people everywhere, but it had the biggest impact on US Citizens because it was aimmed at the US not Britian, not Canada, not Germany, but America.


    The fact that it was extremist doesn't change the fact that they were muslims. Their are extremist christians, but they are still called christians. Just because they take their religion to a different level doesnt change the fact that its still their religion. Or because they see something in their Bible or Kran differently or more severly than others still makes them a part of that religion.


    You said that this community center accepts everyone. Well, do you think they would turn away an muslim extremist just because they see their religion a bit different or more extreme no because they accept everyone.


    However, just because they say its open to everyone doesn't mean it will be. They could just say that so they can build there and then not open to other people than Muslims.


    Just because it is open to everyone doesn't mean everyone is going to go their do you think a christian is really going to go there? I would doubt it, but i cant talk for all christians.


    The muslims see that the people aren't happy about this you think they could show some empathy and just build somewhere else, but yet they still press on even though they know the history that happen close to there and that millions of americans arent happy.

  5. Well i am american too and i have a problem with it and i know plenty of people who do.


    And The Doctor I would argue back, but then it would turn out to be another Rigged football thing and we still arent done agrueing over that.

  6. North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (around 2 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has one of the world's largest special operations forces, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime.

    The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ).


    Sabretooth that is from the same website where you got your information from. It was right under it so even if i got my facts wrong they can easily take them over. Do you not think that another country might step in a join North Korea things like that have happen in the past...


    Plus the US may step it, but no one has considered that the US then would be fighting a war on two fronts Afghanistan and Korea how do you think that will look for President Obama. We are already having enough problems with the ecomony and stuff of that nature and our debt is in the trillions do you think that the US will want to put us in even more debt? A lot of the debt came from the Afghanistan and Iraq war how much support do you think the US people will have behind this war. It will be like the Vietnam war all over again.


    South Korea is right now having drills getting ready for a war and this is what the North Korean government said in responds with this and i quote


    "A similar exercise a month ago provoked a North Korean barrage that killed two civilians and two soldiers on the island. The North Korean government had warned that if Monday’s drill was carried out, its response would be “deadlier” this time “in terms of the power and range of the strike.”


    That doesnt sound like unification to me

  7. Wow, that makes this whole thing even more ridiculous. A centre expressly intended to promote interfaith peace is being given **** because it happened to be proposed by a Muslim.


    It looks like you just can't ****ing win in the States if you're Muslim, can you?


    I mean no offense about what im about to say, but your a canadian so its different for you. If Muslims destroyed a National Landmark in Canada and then wanted to expanded their Church's community center (the community that people from their relegion destroyed.) you would be a unset about it too.

  8. I follow international Association Football (read: Soccer), but that's about it. I actually despise professional hockey, but don't let the news out: I'm Canadian, and I may just be lynched for saying it. :xp:



    Even if that were true (which it's not - my future father-in-law is a firm believer in the realism of WWE wrestling), I don't see how it's at all relevant.



    While you're certainly not wrong, I don't see how that's relevant either. If I want to fix a game, I must have incentive to do so. Great sums of money is most likely (but granted, not necessarily definitely) that incentive. So sharing a fraction of that money with the people who helped me make it isn't really a huge deal. It's only fair - they did all the work. All I did was ask them to do it, and I made millions of dollars out of it. I'm willing to share some of it if it means avoiding losing all of it to an investigation that could land me in serious financial and legal trouble.



    I could say the same thing about any sport. I know I don't care to see the same ten/eleven/twelve/thirteen/etc. men play the same number of the same opponents they fought last year, especially if I've already seen them do it for a number of consecutive years already. That's part of the reason I only really follow international soccer, which really only becomes important enough for me to care every four years. A lot changes on a team in four years, so it's rarely (though admittedly not never) the same teams facing off.



    On television, just about anything.



    I don't want to keep repeating myself, but as you seem to have glanced over it previously I'll give it one more go...


    You're on a football team. Whichever one you want, it doesn't really matter. You're a good player, maybe even the best. Let's say you're the star quarterback of the league, and every team desperately wanted you. You're a household name throughout the country and you make over $30 million a game (I don't know what the average football player makes these days, beyond "way more than I do", but let's just pretend for the sake of argument that this is a high rate of pay for the NFL).


    Your coach approaches you and a few of the other players one night. He's been asked by someone (let's say the owner of the next game's opposing team) to help the opposing team land a big endorsement deal; to do so, you and your team mates will have to throw the game. The coach and owner have agreed, and all the backroom politics have been dealt with. The game is now fixed, whether you like it or not. Losing this game, which you and your team are expected to take unchallenged, could seriously damage your career for years to come. Your career and your name are at stake. Are you really going to agree to not only go along with it, but to keep it secret, if you're not making HUGE money in the process? Of course not.


    Teams that are asked or forced to throw a game still make big money, regardless of what you seem to think. Sports rigging wouldn't exist otherwise, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.



    This depends on what degree of rigging we're talking about. If we're talking about the odd game or series of games being fixed because of a deal reached in the boardrooms, then I have to say you're dead wrong; big money is handed over in such cases, more than enough to make up for a years' worth of lost endorsements.


    If we're talking about entire seasons being rigged with even the final game being decided months or years in advance, then one would have to believe that the league is fixed to the point where teams are allowed to win or lose at a rate that guarantees more or less even, or at the very least believable, endorsements all around. I point you again towards wrestling: are not even the lowest-ranked wrestlers endorsed by big money corporations? Granted, they may not make as much money as the more "successful" wrestlers, but it may really be just as simple as them not caring, so long as they're more famous than the rest of us.



    If the players only care about making money and not the game itself, then there is literally nothing stopping them from agreeing to throw a game if it means they'll still make money out of it. Which I've already pointed out they will.



    That depends entirely on the player, plain and simple. A team paid to lose can still pay the players just as easily as a team allowed to win.



    There are plenty of people out there with enough money to fix a football game. Pretty much any owner of any football team, for example. The logic is simple: they can make money out of it, just like how the people behind the inception and rigging of pro wrestling make money out of it.


    As you said, there are plenty of sports out there to rig. And I'd bet any amount of money that all of them have been rigged, to varying degrees, at some point in their history. Thinking that football is unique in that it has never or could never be fixed really is terribly, painfully naive.



    And I think you simply enjoy watching football too much to want to believe it could ever be fixed. ;)


    First off I'm more of a soccer and basketball guy myself. I do watch football though, but not that often. Plus your taking to much knowledge from games that are rigged and trying to say its the same principle as in football. Plus you obvious don't watch football (and before you say something about it i meant American football) so your trying to talk about something that you know little about.


    I don't know much about wrestling sooo you probably have more knowledge than me taking into consideration that your dad watches it. So my facts my be off. Well, what is their like 10-15 people in wrestling? Well its obvious that it will be easier for them to be endorse than over 1,696 individual football players (that was back in 2005 so it maybe more or less now not sure.) Thats why if your a "good" football player you want to be on a winning team so you have a higher chance of getting one.


    Now, why would one of the better football player want to hurt his chances of getting a bonus and endorsements by hurting his teams score or hurting his own stats. You could easily tell if a team was throwning a game. And a team doesn't get an endorsement for winning one game (unless it is the Super Bowl in case you don't know what that is it is the World Cup of football) Which means they would have to bribe more than one team so that they could get a endorsement in line. Plus don't you think the team that was asked to throw the game so they could get the endorsements would think if they won the game they could get the endorsement.


    The fact all the players from both teams would want a cut of the endorsement money which is logical like you said if you did the work you want the cash. So of course you like you said you would pay them. After paying 106 players (average amount of players per team is 53) and the coaches and the owners how much money do you think would be left?

    It wouldn't be a sum of money anymore. (probably still more than what most people make)


    So don't you think and owner of a team might just say if you guys win this game ill give you all a big bonus. And you guys get an endorsement contract which gives you are more money. Do you think a team will lose with that incentive? I think not.


    And if he did this he would only have to pay his team and not two teams which means more money for the owner of the team and thats what he wants.

  9. Where exactly did Sabre write that North Korea would take over South Korea? How do you know it wouldn’t be South Korea absorbing North Korea? Plus doesn’t peaceful reunification suggest a mutual decision?


    Do you really believe those in Germany today live under the same conditions of the former East Germans?


    I meant no disrespect to her, but do you honestly think that the leader of South Korea would give up his position of power so another country can have his land? Now, you said, " that South Korea might absorb North Korea" that would mean that South Korea would rule over North Korea; that means that the North Korea dictator would lose his power over his people, do you think he wants that. Kim Jong II (I think is his name) could easily take over South Korea and unify it under his rule. Which one do you think he would prefer losing his position of power or gainning even more power.


    If you look at the facts more than 60% of his people are in the miltary and he is building nuclear weapons what is the point of having that big of a miltary force if no one is going to attack you or your not going to attack someone.

  10. I really don't think a war's going to break out in Korea anytime soon... I actually find the idea of a peaceful reunification more likely than another war.


    I don't think that it will be a peaceful unification when one side has nuclear weapons and the other side has nothing compared to the North Korea. Plus do you think that the South Korea want to be taken over by a country where their are massive starvation because they give all their food to the miltary. Plus the North Koreas don't have any freedoms. They have a closed border policy which means no one gets in or out. Who wants to live under those conditions? Not to meantion that they are Communist.

  11. I don't think that is a good solution because it was the Muslims that destroyed it in the first place (not saying all Muslims just saying they were Muslims.) so if we declare a Mosque a national landmark there would be a national uprising. The Muslim is just showing America disrespect. The reason behind this their are plenty of places where they could build a Mosque, but they tried to build it there where thousands of Americans died because of muslim suicide bombers.

  12. Haha, oh okay and even you Lord Revan can't handle the awesome power of GODKING. Just look at my amazingness. You can't touch this; i'm saying that because you really cant touch a god let alone their king. mwahh so i am sumpreme

  13. I'm the first to admit that I haven't heard of any of them at all, much less of them winning. I don't follow American football. I'll also admit to misunderstanding your remark about fluctuation of team performances and such, for which I apologise.


    More naivety. Professional wrestling has the same idea: a good number of wrestlers who hardly ever win, and then a good few that are seen as 'the best'. But it's all fixed to be like that. The wrestlers are paid to win, or they're paid to lose. I can't fathom how someone could deny that it's possible for the same to be done in any other sporting competition, whether it be football, basketball, hockey, whatever.


    A "good" player doesn't want to be on a team that can't pay him. That is not the same thing as a good player not wanting to be on a team that doesn't win. That's where I think you're being a little more naive than you could be: the idea that the losing team in a fixed game isn't paid well for their poor performance.



    I'll have to take you at your word for that (re: the Super Bowl). I admit to not knowing the specific economics of American football. I'll just say again that a team paid to lose can quite often be paid just as much as they would have made in endorsements etc. had they won. Otherwise, why would they agree to let themselves lose? So someone else can make big money? Sports rigging can't be done that way; the chosen losers have to make money too, or they won't do it. Or even worse, they'll blow the whistle on the whole thing and get a lot of people in a **** ton of trouble.




    First off Apology accepted. Whats sports do you follow?


    You can't use Professional wrestling as an example because everyone knows that Professional wrestling is a sport that is rig. Plus its a lot easier to rig a wrestling match because all you would have to do is pay off one person. To rig a football game you not only have to pay of the owner, but the all the coaches, then most of the starter players. Thats a lot more cash than just one person. And the reason they are a good number of wrestlers that never win is because no one wants to watch the same guys wrestling each other so they add people just to get they @$$$ kicked so they can excite the watch. Come on whats better than watching someone getting the $*** kicked out of them. (Thats not saying i'm a wrestling fan)


    Ask yourself this, what teams wont have the money to pay "good" players? I'm pretty sure that a winning team will be able to because not only will their be more people watching their games to see how they are doing, but sponsors want to sponsor a team that is winning whats the point to sponsor a team that is losing. Now ask yourself this, if you were a "good" football player would you want to be on a team that is losing (which means they are losing money remeber and no endorsements) or a team that is winning? (which means endorsements, bonuses, more money when you renew your contract) So i think the choice is odvious... So the "good" players (plus their sports agents) look at when a team is losing and think are they going to have the money to give me when i ask for more, or are they going to say too bad. You got to realize that these player (well let me say most of these players) don't care about the sport itself anymore now since they made it to the big times; they only care which team will pay them the most money to help their team win. So indeed that a good player doesn't want to be on a team that can't pay him. Is the same thing as a player that doesn't want to be on a team that is losing.


    "Tell me this who in their right mind would need to rig a football game and before you answer that who has the money to rig a football game?" Their is no logic behind it, no one needs to rig football games because their is so many other sports out there that are rigged for example: sumo wrestling and wrestling. Once again Why would someone rig a football game? Please tell me cause i defiently don't see the logic behind it


    And I think you are just a bit hard headed and don't see the logic behind what I am saying.

  14. You seem a bit naive to be 16. Here'a rundown of your major flaws in logic:


    • If a sport is fixed, the idea of letting teams noticeably rise and fall would be detrimental to profits, and therefore defeat purpose of fixing anything in the first place. It ruins the façade of reality that keeps fans watching. Think about it: your team has been losing consistently for a few games after an amazing winning streak; then they start winning again; then they lose some more. It doesn't make sense; you have to keep the teams' performances relatively even, or you lose the believability, and therefore viewership.
    • This is more a nitpick from a non-American than a serious point, but I'm going to say it anyway: football is a worldwide past time. American football is an American past time. Tell someone in Western Europe, South America, Africa, Western Asia... hell, pretty much anyone in the rest of the world that "football is American" and see what they have to say to you. ;D
    • Perhaps most importantly, the people who own the teams of rigged sporting events are paid big bucks to throw a game, for the exact reasons you seem to think they'd never agree: they want to win so they make money from sponsorships and the like; and the team members will be unhappy when they lose, especially if they had to let themselves lose because the boss said so. Therefore, if they're being asked to throw a game, they want to be paid well for it. Otherwise, you're right: they wouldn't do it. I'm sure you can think of a few sporting world scandals where an athlete accepted large sums of money to throw a game; don't think an entire team couldn't be bought for the right price, or you do yourself a disservice.


    Okay you say that a team will lose some and win some thats correct, right? They are plenty of teams in the NFL that just keep losing year after year for example the Bengals or the Bills and Texans. When is the last time you heard of them win? And a team like the Patriots they win and win their record is 12 and 2. They win a lot every year or lose every year because they have a good team. If you look at the players on some of these teams they dont need to be fixed because the teams that win alot have the best players in the league becuase they have the money to pay them. The teams that lose a lot dont have amazing players on their team. Look at the panthers a while back the panthers where in the Super Bowl. After they lossed the Super Bowl their fan base went down which means less money. So their money cap went down which meant they couldnt afford to hire the better players coming into the league so they started to lose more and more games. As the years went over they kept losing and losing. Just recently they had to get rid of their quarterback and their best defensive linemen because they couldn't afford to pay them the high amount of money that they used to.

    So they are losing even more games. The year that they went to the Super Bowl was 2003 their record was 14-6 now their record is 2-12 do you see now the reason this could happen? And a good player don't want to be on a team that loses a lot because of that reason they wont be getting the money that they deserve so they get traded to teams that are winning so they get the cash they want. So to simplify this for you money=better players= wins=money do you see the cycle now?


    And the only games that people would really want to rig would be the Super Bowl. If a team wins the Super Bowl they get more fans and it keeps the fans happy (fans=money remeber) so the owners of the teams get more money to get better players so they can keep winning and get more money because of winning . Example: Patriots won 2003 Super Bowl been winning ever since. So why would a owner want to get a lump sum of money once and then start loseing and lose more money over the years than they got for that one loss.


    But a "niave" 16 year old like myself dont know what im talking about.

  • Create New...