Yes
No
79%
15 votes
21%
4 votes
I hope God fails at everything he attemps. It will be rightful punishment for his sins!
@ Juan_Pablo You do not understand what "sin" is. Sin is not bad or wrong. Sin literally means "against the will of God". For God to have sin, must mean God was coerced into doing something against His own will, such as rape. I doubt theists will believe in the existence of a being capable of raping their "almighty" gods.
Aizen, with all due respect to your beliefs, I consider myself a God in my own right and God has offended me with his actions. Thus he has "sinned". I hope that clears it up a bit for you.
And of course humankind has the power to punish God . . . And he will be.
Okay. You know what: I'm very angry right now because it just seems like God asserted himself into my life in order to humiliate me. None of you know me but the way in which God revealed himself to me is very embarrassing and God clearly took the opportunity to force me to humble myself before the world - which is very hard for me! I'm very arrogant, proud, and selfish person and it's hard for me to deal with all these forced losses and humiliations that God is putting me through.
That's why I'm angry.
I apologize very my snide, rude responses and comments on this pagel! I apologize!
I apologize.
Please ignore my answer to the poll question above!
Again, sorry.
I changed my answer to "no" and explained it with a clarification.
@Juan
----
You speak of checks and balances, but this poll is about a leader "given complete power".
@Haroush
----
Assume that the leader has been in charge for atleast 5 years so his leadership policies are actually implamented. Do you believe no-matter what if the leader faced no consequences he would simply do whatever pleased him in a strong developed country with easily accessible resources?
@ Actionsspeak, Well, simply put (like I said before and in no way attempting to be facetious) it depends on his heart. Plus, it depends on if he puts other people before him or not. If the leader in question is good leader, he would do what is best for the people, not himself.
Is a good leader
@Haroush
----
Can you list one leader with complete control who led a strong country and didn't abuse power?
Hitler and Stalin had great intentions, i'm sure you know it didn't stay that way when they had complete power.
With all do respect, that is a loaded question. Meaning any answer I would give would have to be some form of a dictator. Which in turn, any rule or action they may have taken could be seen as abuse of power. So, speaking on this premises, there wouldn't be no sufficient answer. That is if you are speaking of dictatorship. Though, if you are speaking of any leader who had complete control at ONE point of time, then I would say George Washington. You do realize they wanted to make him king, but he refused, right?
@Haroush
----
The american citizens hated britain's form of government and never offered washington to be a king, this story has been proved incorrect. You realize that, right?
----
http://msuweb.Montclair.Edu/~furrg/gbi/docs/kingmyth.Html
Sorry, Actionsspeak that hasn't been debunked yet. http://millercenter.org/president/washington/essays/biography/print
Furthermore, I wonder why in the many of paintings of George Washington they made him out to be above all others in society?
George Washington was a slave owning a**hole! He LOVED power over others!
And because George Washington owned slaves, he evidently LOVED believing he was superior to others. Now isn't that evil!
George Washington was a slaver-owner who disliked slavery. He's on record for stating that he didn't like it. Does that make him a hypocrite? Yeah, it does. And it shows you that even the best of humanity can follow through on controversial behavior from time to time, simply because it's popular and some people insist it's alright. This is why it's important to have things like constitutional rights and laws, that prevents a certain person or group from having too much power. In government, this is called Checks and Balances and its very important to curtail the abuse of power.
Correction:
"In government, this is called Checks and Balances and it's very important in limiting a branch of government's authority and curtailing abusive power.
@Jaun, Before you go judging someone's heart that you never knew, nor did or does anyone else living right now, think about the circumstances in which were considered normal back then. Furthermore, how do you know he wasn't one of those slave owners who gave slaves better lives. You do have to remember, there was good slave owners back then as well as bad. It's not saying slavery is good in general, but there was benefits to having a good slave owner at the time, rather than being free and getting caught by some supremacist who seen that African Americans should be treated not like a human being. Lastly, let's not forget the institution of slavery existed ever since the civilization of man.
Haroush, there was nothing good about slavery . . . No matter how much you want to perfume.
. . . Perfume it.
At Jaun.. I didn't say there was. Speaking of the slavery we are talking about... Though do you know of all the different forms of slavery?
More information is required.
Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and 
Eventually they will. just like Harvey Dent says. - You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
I can resist anything except temptation
Everyone is different. However I do believe most people would...
you have control over a NATION of coarse you would
One word: Cincinnatus. Such men certainly exist, and thus it is not true that power corrupts people.
Checks and Balances can be used to restrain the influence one political figure has in government. Transparency and constitutional checks and balances are probably a necessary feature to prevent abuse of power.
No. But is more likely to seek position.
It depends on the person and a good example is George Washington.