Posts made by i_killed_mufasa

GG are you telling me you havnt played it before?

i didnt rate it highly. i thought it was too straight forward a shoot em up and the story sucked (plumber takes on whole army)

i was dissappionted by the apache, it has stupid controls i was hoping for utter devastation. I loved the motorbikes thought

Yes Finland should be taken early, mainly beacuse the Germans have no way of liberating it while Karalia is in allies hands. From there i think Eastern Europe is the most important as it prevents the Germans gettting into Russia and with a good transport net work can be taken on Uk’s turn and then reinforced by both USA and Russia before the Germans get to go. With Eastern Europe Held and good transports all 3 of his big territories can be captured making from some difficult decisions.

They could have built the regime without anti-semitism, indeed histrians have discovered that on the whole that was the least attractive aspect of Nazism to the German people.

Hitler could have at least doubled the size of his army if he had not been so strong on his racism, not just the Jews but also Russian POW’s (some of whom did fight) and Slavs and other occupied countries.

If HItler had carried out Sealion it would have been instead of Russia (or at least stalling it for a few years).

Mussolini boasted his forces would destroy the British fleet and capture Africa with his 8 million bayonets. Actually Mussolini relied on HItler for resources (in particualr coal) and had set HItler huge quantities of materials which he required before he would be able to join in the war (hence Mussolini not joining in till he thought that the war was as good as won). This isnt particularly insulting to the Italians, they were a country which was not ready for war but which had been forced in by their leader.

i wish Mussolini had been an option, that bloated Italian caused him problems in Greece and cost him Africa. However with the list i went for Barborossa, Leningrad, Stalingrad and MOsocow where going to happen as a result of this so are connected……
Battle of Britian was pretty bad also

lust and sin is slightly off topic, but yes Jesus never did sin, but he was hardly a regular human either

well it isnt possible to have a sinless homosexual, mainly because it isnt possible to have a sinless human being.
As for lust, it is clearly a sin and one needs to ask god for forgivness for it, however, to go out and act uppon that lust is just saying to god you really dont care what he thinks.

i got an N64 but i may buy a gamesube when i have finished my exmas as i kind of well done present to myself :lol: , think i will also buy more axis and allies stuff

the bible question is difficult. God will forgive sinners that much is true. However, we must do our best not to sin, while lust is sin it is worse to act upon those feelings. Everyone lusts and in that way everyonen sins, however, it is going a stage further to act upon it and that is why it is covered in to different Commandments (adultery and lustful thoughts are two seperate sins).

God is referring to their lifestlye in those verses. Clearly god will forgive them but he makes it clear he disapproves.

As for your artilces they only breifly cover the situation. I was talking to a Cambridge doctor the other day and he gave me a great quote about how playing in the sewage is likely to lead to problems.

My first article uses the Oxford university report as its basis, and the fact that it has a bais does not mean that its information is useless. The reason why anal sex can be so dangerous is that it compact and compressess material which was meant to be on its way out, this now sits and festers which leads to a drop in the level of effectiveness of the immune system. I am afriad that you will find, even if aids is discounted that homosexaul sex will lead to a drop in life expectancy.

The source for that sites information is Oxford Univeristy!!!

There is still much debate as whether they were born like that, many it appears to be an emotional response to a situation. HOwever, increasinly more are ‘social’ homosexuals. Furthermore as ‘choice’ goes, they may feel desires but that deosnt mean they are forced to act upon them, humans still have a ‘choice’ as to the course of action they take. I was not talking about aids, everyone can get aids, i am talking about what anal sex does to the immune system.

As for other reasons i am a Christian if that is what you mean, and i oppose the use of the word marriage, but would grudingly accept civil unions.

Can none of you see the other side to this? Just becase they want it doesnt make it right? There may be consequences, we shouldnt just run into things regardless.

McGee i completely disagree with you, homosexuality is not a good thing but that doesnt mean it should be completely outlawed, i am merely stating that things like marriage which encourage homosexuality should not be allowed.

Also homosexauls tend to have more parterns fact, but even those who dont are a serious risk as homosexual sex wrecks immune systems.

i am jus playing the World War 4 variant with about 30 freinds from school (althought now it is down to about 20).

sorry, there is a more up to date source, a study by Oxford university who came to similar conclusions as to the website. The 20 years figure was if they didnt contract aids. And it is a fact that they live much shorter lives, what i was trying to say was that we should accept those who are homosexual but we should not encourage more people to become homosexual by portraying it as a lifestlye choice.
Furthermore objecting to gay marriage does not make me homoephebic, in the same way that my objection to abortion deosnt make my anti-feminist.

http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha031901.asp

here is some evidence for point 3, it is quite detailed and doesnt make cofortable reading.

I am sorry if my opinions offended you but this is hardly an issue where one can show thier opinions without offending the other side. Also i would like to say i am in no way homopehbic, i am happy for them to exist and practise in the quite of thier own homes, however, i do not feel they are entitled to marriage.

I think it is terrible and i will outline my thinking:

1. marriage is a religious institution which should be changed by the religion and not governemnt
2. the fact that lots of marriages end in divroce is not an argument
3. it is a dangerous life style which knocks some 20 years off your life (more if you get aids), if you compare this to 8 from smoking. Therefore it should be accepted but not encouraged.
4. i had better stop there before i insult anyone……