Been going down for a long time. Like when people started doing the disgusting, sexually explicit and evil dance; the waltz. In the 1771 German novel Geschichte des Fräuleins von Sternheim by Sophie von La Roche, a high-minded character complains about the newly introduced waltz among aristocrats thus: "But when he put his arm around her, pressed her to his breast, cavorted with her in the shameless, indecent whirling-dance of the Germans and engaged in a familiarity that broke all the bounds of good breeding—then my silent misery turned into burning rage. Well done! This claim about moral decay has been around for generations, but when you look at it over very long periods of time, you get a proper sense of how ridiculous it is. As long as people don't lie, cheat, steal or kill, I have no concern what they do.
Fantastic attitude. I share it. |
|
|
|
What are your thoughts on this, does Huppke have a valid point? Hillary Clinton will coast if opponents go to Crazy Town
By Rex W. Huppke
Before Hillary Clinton had even made her presidential run official, some unlikely allies began campaigning for her.
At the National Rifle Association's annual convention Friday, Wayne LaPierre, the organization's executive vice president said: "Hillary Rodham Clinton will bring a permanent darkness of deceit and despair, forced upon the American people to endure."
This is the same Wayne LaPierre who spent the past six years warning that President Barack Obama would transform the nation into a gun-less, unrecognizable hell-state rife with rampaging bands of terrorists and "knockout gamers."
Even if you don't like Obama, it's clear that prophecy was a bit off. The gun industry has cleaned up during the Obama years, which is probably why LaPierre so badly wants Clinton to win.
Yes, I realize predicting "a permanent darkness of deceit and despair" is an unorthodox endorsement. But the more craziness Clinton's so-called detractors spout the better her chances of becoming commander-in-chief.
GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz also spoke at the NRA conference and uttered this gem: "If Hillary Clinton is going to join with Barack Obama and the gun grabbers and come after our guns, then what I say is, 'Come and take it.' "
My first response was: "OK, Ted, how's tomorrow around noon-ish sound?"
My second response was: "Ted, that should technically be, 'Come and take them.' "
Third, and most important, was: Gun grabbers? Nobody has had their guns grabbed. Gun sales have gone through the roof since Obama was first elected, mainly because people like LaPierre have done such a good job making NRA members think the president will be popping by momentarily to grab their guns.
These comments from LaPierre and Cruz, coming before Clinton's Sunday campaign announcement, are emblematic of a swath of the Republican Party that has been locked in crazy mode for so long it may have forgotten what sanity sounds like. That, without question, bodes well for Clinton, but not for our democracy.
The former secretary of state undoubtedly has the qualifications to become president, but she also has the baggage that comes with the Clinton name and an array of issues that Americans should rightfully hear her address. Issues including the highly dodgy disposal of email from her time as secretary of state, her close ties to financial industry executives and the international fundraising conducted by her family's charitable organization, the Clinton Foundation.
My concern is this: If GOP rabble-rousers can't temper their over-the-top rhetoric, Clinton will coast to the presidency without addressing serious questions because she'll seem like the only non-crazy option.
That's likely why she launched her campaign with a mundane video that devoted a minute-and-a-half to "everyday Americans" and about 30 seconds to Clinton saying, "I'm running for president." She's now off to smaller campaign events in Iowa and other states, keeping things low key.
Which may be all she needs to do. Americans have listened to years of far-right rants about Obama destroying the very fabric of the nation and driving us all to ruin, and I'd guess most are more than a little sick of the nonsense.
It's one thing to have differing views on economic or foreign policy. It's another thing to scream "TYRANNY!" at the top of your lungs every time Obama speaks. That makes "everyday Americans" roll their eyes and say, "OK, I'm going to go on about my business here and leave you to your conspiratorial clucking."
Consider this: A recent CNN/ORC International poll found that 51 percent of respondents consider Clinton's use of a personal email address and home-based server while she was secretary of state to be "very serious" or "somewhat serious."
There are, indeed, serious questions to be asked. But on the same day Clinton announced her candidacy, former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum tweeted a link to a video about the email scandal that features clips of ISIS soldiers and the sound of gunshots punctuating a voiceover claiming Clinton has "placed America in even greater peril in an already dangerous world."
Ease up on the drama throttle, Santorum. Clinton wasn't sending e-vites asking ISIS members to attend her Fourth of July barbecue. If you take a serious issue and go full-crazy on it, you make it seem less serious.
The Republican Party has people like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio, who declared his candidacy Monday, who have been reluctant to cave to the zany fervor that Obama's presidency has drawn out of the GOP base. If someone sensible can prevail in the primaries and set a tone that's at least a few notches below apocalyptic — and if the Democrats can contain their own crazies — we might have a presidential campaign that's reasoned, and that tests both candidates.
But if Clinton's opponents decide the only path to the White House leads through the Land of Loopy Hyperbole, she'll just sit back and let them repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot until all that remains are angry, legless Republican torsos.
And if the ballot offers "Hillary Clinton" or "angry, legless Republican torso," American voters won't have a difficult decision to make.
|
|
|
|
All right, calm down mate. Your over-defensiveness speaks louder than your words. Does Russia not have some analogous system of common law based on court cases? This rule/law/whatever you want to call it came down from your censorship agency after a court case made it possible to enforce. That's how common law works in the western world, that's how the judicial branch creates case law. You know what the difference between the "Coinye" lawsuit and the Lurkmore lawsuit is? After the decision, no censorship agency in the US declared all memes illegal, or all cryptocurrencies illegal, or all anything illegal. |
|
|
|
I am not attacking you Muhammed Zakir. I believe you wish to live a moral life under the rules of your religion, and you do not condone violence committed by ISIS. I believe their form of Islam is not in keeping with the Islam you practice. I am not even calling them Islamic. When I repeat that, I'm repeating what they call themselves. If this was a group of 10 people in the desert, it wouldn't matter. But ISIS is tens of thousands strong. They recruit from all over the world. They are able to recruit because their violence resonates with some people for some reason. And after ISIS, there is Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and probably many other groups I don't even know about who all have similar violent ideologies and also self-identify as Islamic. This is a very troubling number of people committing violence in the name of Islam, and I already know it's forbidden by you and good Muslims everywhere, but that's changing nothing. We can all agree this is a false Islam, but that's an academic point. It does nothing to stop the movement, to stop the killing, and as a non-religious person, all I care about is that people stop killing other people. I don't care if they're bad Muslims, or non-Muslims; they're bad people, but they are drawn to a violent message, and they think that message fits with Islam for some reason, whether they are academically right or wrong seems rather irrelevant at that point to me.
Neither me attacking you. Why I am telling they ain't Muslims is to protect others. Some Muslims are brainwashed and all. If the misconception "Islamic" is removed, many people would turn away from brutal things like ISIS is doing. This would also help to decrease some of the murders. However, only way to finish this is "war" but there will be consequences on both sides. I hope these things will be solved soon. I see your point about denying them the label of "Islamic" so that there is no confusion that people who follow them are doing so for anything they can claim to be a legitimate religious reason. It's not invalid, I just don't know how useful it is. Do you think they would they be less of a movement if they called themselves something else? In a long-term perception, I believe so. Some people come and join saying it is Islamic and are brainwashed. Also some people hate all Muslims when media say "Islamic" resulting in more violence and hatred. If media stop it, both Muslims and non-Muslims may go more peacefully and brainwashed kids maybe able to releaze they are telling lie. I don't how exactly I should say. I have some points but I can't express it in English. I think you get th point. This doesn't stop ISIS or other violent groups, however, we may atleast be able to reduce it. All right, this is a fair point. But also consider that I don't think very many of the people they are recruiting in the Middle East have access to Western Media reports, and if they do, this is not what sways them into believing ISIS is Islamic. They believe ISIS is Islamic for entirely different reasons, and if you want to combat the perception of ISIS as Islamic, you're better pressed figuring out why poor people without access to Western Media are finding the violence of ISIS and their own understanding of Islam to be congruent. |
|
|
|
Response to Jayasabi:
'Aisha and prophet's Nikkah was done when 'Aisha was 7-9 years old and they started living together(consummation) when 'Aisha reached maturity, i.e., 9-12 years old. 'Aisha was mentally and physically matured. 'Aisha was very happy with marriage. If both wife and husband is okay, what's the problem? Also how can a marriage be compared to rape? Both are different.
Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 299:
Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Aswad:
(on the authority of his father) 'Aisha said: 'Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her.' 'Aisha added, 'None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could.'
The problem I have with this is 1) it comes from a religious text which is very unreliable by nature of it being a religious text, and 2) it's not possible for me to conceptualize a 9-12 year-old being "mentally and physically matured" because we live in a time when 9-12 year-olds are without question not mentally and physically matured at that age. Perhaps under a very different value system and many hundreds of years ago, it was socially acceptable to marry and boff children because no one had the sense to know better, but the fact remains that we now know better, and it's not justifiable now. In our society, we don't consider marriage and rape exclusionary. Rape is capable of taking place inside of a marriage. It has to do with consent. You can be married and not provide consent. And one aspect of consent, is the ability to give consent. And as a society, we do not consider children to be able to give consent because even when they are saying yes, they are too young to understand the emotional and psychological things they are saying yes to. These are important things in our world today that your religious books do not even consider because the concepts did not exist at the time. |
|
|
|
I am not attacking you Muhammed Zakir. I believe you wish to live a moral life under the rules of your religion, and you do not condone violence committed by ISIS. I believe their form of Islam is not in keeping with the Islam you practice. I am not even calling them Islamic. When I repeat that, I'm repeating what they call themselves. If this was a group of 10 people in the desert, it wouldn't matter. But ISIS is tens of thousands strong. They recruit from all over the world. They are able to recruit because their violence resonates with some people for some reason. And after ISIS, there is Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and probably many other groups I don't even know about who all have similar violent ideologies and also self-identify as Islamic. This is a very troubling number of people committing violence in the name of Islam, and I already know it's forbidden by you and good Muslims everywhere, but that's changing nothing. We can all agree this is a false Islam, but that's an academic point. It does nothing to stop the movement, to stop the killing, and as a non-religious person, all I care about is that people stop killing other people. I don't care if they're bad Muslims, or non-Muslims; they're bad people, but they are drawn to a violent message, and they think that message fits with Islam for some reason, whether they are academically right or wrong seems rather irrelevant at that point to me.
Neither me attacking you. Why I am telling they ain't Muslims is to protect others. Some Muslims are brainwashed and all. If the misconception "Islamic" is removed, many people would turn away from brutal things like ISIS is doing. This would also help to decrease some of the murders. However, only way to finish this is "war" but there will be consequences on both sides. I hope these things will be solved soon. I see your point about denying them the label of "Islamic" so that there is no confusion that people who follow them are doing so for anything they can claim to be a legitimate religious reason. It's not invalid, I just don't know how useful it is. Do you think they would they be less of a movement if they called themselves something else? |
|
|
|
Actually, the phrase "allah akbar" has already been hijacked to refer to gibberish spouted by a maniac in a pseudo-Islamic killing frenzy.
That's over and done. That's what the phrase means.
Even I think you are letting your own bias and hatred color things too much now. You take something you have a one-dimensional view of and declare it to be a universal truth? Get over yourself a bit. |
|
|
|
She was mature at the time of consummation and married with consent so why do think it's wrong? Women in hotter climates attain puberty earlier. WTF is wrong with you? How can a 9-year old kid attain "maturity" to engage in sexual relationships? I expected you to counter his argument by saying that there is no evidence to prove that she was 9-year old at the time of marriage. Disappointing. I suggest you read Aisha's journals and narrations. She always praised and followed Prophet's teachings throughout her life till she died at the age of 64. If she never mentioned a single issue with her marriage throughout her life and was most happily married then I don't see what's the problem with you. She was 9. Even children that are being captured by ISIS now, upon release, in some cases side with them as they have been indoctrinated. It's called Stockholm Syndrome. What choice did this girl have but to serve and follow. It was all she knew. Besides that, had she spoken out if she had an issue what would have been the consequence? That is a serious question, what would her fate have been if she'd just decided she wanted out? Was that even an option and what would have befallen her if she had chosen that route? you are taking the wrong doing of a certain number of people and blaming their religion? is that correct? what is your religion may i know? When in response to something, someone says Mohammad married a 9 year old girl as a religious justification, isn't that cause to blame the religion? |
|
|
|
No, you saying "never" is highly inaccurate, when I did not say "never" or any synonym thereof. Fucks sake, man, READ.
So the statement "Of course there is effectively no need for insurance at all, when courts almost always grant government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al ad nauseam" does not connote the meaning that there is no need for insurance? Why would there be no need for insurance if not for a lack of payouts? I only reached the conclusion you lead me to. |
|
|
|
Apparently the guy who shot the suspect wasn't a police officer: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a0_1428891056I had no idea they allowed rich civilian donors to play police officers without the regular formal training. It was a disaster waiting to happen, and now it happened. What I also find strange is that he wasn't able to tell the difference between a gun and a Taser. But I guess that might be down to the fact that he isn't even trained to be a police officer. This is F*cking crazy! SO if I give the cops enough money I can be a cop on the weekends? Who gives this untrained old guy a gun and lets him play cop anyways? Even if he wasn't a cop the other cops are complete dicks and out ofline . Guy gets shot, the other cop puts his knee on the dudes dome. Guy is saying he cant breath and the cop replied "F*ck your breath". This is what the militarization of the police force does, it creates a us vs them mentality and them are treated below humans. It is the same principle with soldiers in Iraq, the decensitizing of the people you are fighting. No big deal with accidently killed that guy he was jsut a dumb ass haji. No, this isn't true. See the link I posted directly above (or below!) for context. He was a trained law officer assigned to the Violent Crimes Task Force and had specialized training in homicide investigations.http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepage1/updated-district-attorney-steve-kunzweiler-charges-reserve-deputy-with-second/article_883e0747-46e9-595d-9c4f-e1cb4fdabbf4.html?mode=storyThanks for clearing that up, I was gonna say that is madness. My favorite part of that article Sheriff Stanley Glanz described Reserve Deputy Robert Charles "Bob" Bates as a longtime friend who made "an error" last week when he fatally shot an unarmed man trying to flee deputies during an undercover operation to retrieve stolen guns. "He made an error," Glanz said. "How many errors are made in an operating room every week?"An investigator retained by the Sheriff's Office found that Bates violated no policies. The case is now in the hands of the District Attorney's Office. Asked if he thought the shooting was justified, Glanz said, "That is a hard word for me to answer."What a bullshit excuse, if any citizen "accidently" shot someone it would be murder and the sheriff would be talking about how if you shoot someone you need to pay the price. They love nailing huge trumped on charges on people over petty shit. I was reading the other day somehwere in Florida a kid changed the windows start up screen on a teacher's computer he didnt like to two guys kissing. They are now charging him with felony computer crimes because somewhere on that computer was encrypted test files. And the last thing I bolded, does he mean the guy that was shot was a piece of shit in his eyes so it was somewhat justified? Yeah, the way the Sheriff is defending this guy sounds like a couple of Good Ole Boys looking out for each other. His refusal to answer the question is probably because he knows he's in deep trouble. I'm glad the prosecutor had enough sense to bring charges, because the "independent" review by the police department shockingly found no violation of the law! |
|
|
|
Could you quote the relevant parts of the article? I couldn't find it with a quick read. Look right under the guy's photo at the top of the article, that's where I got the information from: "RESERVE DEPUTY Bob Bates: He was assigned to the Violent Crimes Task Force and had specialized training in homicide investigations." Also, this from the article: Sheriff's Office procedures were reviewed last week by the national Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement. The inspection was scheduled before the shooting occurred and was not done in response to it, Glanz said.
"They looked at all of our policies and found them to be in order," Glanz said. "And they looked specifically at the reserve program and found it to be in order." So the program he operates under is an accredited law enforcement program. I've never heard of a "reserve deputy program" before, but it seems like part time police officers. |
|
|
|
Definitely "give that man a cookie", there are plenty of funny memes about putin, i really think this will not change anything in the way people use memes, the internet is big...  You are maybr going to be dissappointed but this is anti russia bullshit propaganda and it's actually no law. Russian censors have determined that one of the most popular forms of Internet meme is illegal. According to Roskomnadzor, the Kremlin’s media watchdog, it’s now against the law to use celebrities’ photographs in a meme, “when the image has nothing to do with the celebrity’s personality.”
The new policy comes on the heels of a court decision in Moscow, where a judge ruled that a particular photo meme violates the privacy of Russian singer Valeri Syutkin. The court’s decision targets an article on Lurkmore, a popular Wikipedia-style Russian website that focuses on Internet subcultures and memes.
The court ordered Lurkmore remove controversial meme "BBPE" with Syutkin
Moscow, on 7 April. According to the decision of the Meshchansky Court of Moscow common network meme "BBPE" with photographs of the Russian singer Valery Syutkina obscene and signature must be removed from the pages of the online encyclopedia "Lurkomore» (Lurkmore). Thus the Court granted the petition Roskomnadzora, who represented the singer in court.
Over the next 30 days Lurkmore must remove meme with a portrait or Syutkin Roscomnadzor make resource page in a single register of banned information (which it does, however, regularly, on different occasions).
Photo by Valery Syutkina with an appropriate inscription for several years used the Internet meme BBPE, "Beat a woman by ... (person)", probably due to the fact that intelligent and cheerful person Syutkina better than others opposed to the absurd slogan that allows you to instantly achieve a comic effect.
Earlier in December Meshchansky Court in Moscow refused Roskomnadzor in considering a claim for blacklisted page online resource "Lurkomore» (Lurkmore) to offend Valery Syutkina meme known in abbreviated form as "BBPE", as applied to him "wrong applicant ".
According to the creator of "Lurkomorya" scandalous picture two years older than the site itself. Directly involved in the developments took my mother a singer: she was found that the image of his face "used in bad faith."
Site Lurkmore positions itself as an online encyclopedia of contemporary culture, telling, including the history of the origins of the various memes. The Internet provides the following description of the resource: "Lurkomore» (Lurkmore) - informal, unformatted, frivolous and humorous online encyclopedia, positioning itself as the "Encyclopedia of modern culture, folklore and subcultures, as well as everything else."
No law you were saying? |
|
|
|
I agree with you that they are not "Islamic," at least not the form of Islam most people would consider to be most legitimate.
I didn't want "consider" to be here. I am telling they are completely contradicting Islamic rules and trachings. Says you. They say you've got Islam wrong. It's a case of he said/she said. I don't care, I think you're all wrong because religion is stupid. All I care about is people stop killing. The problem is ISIS claims to be Islamic, and they have enough people who agree with them to be the force that they are.
As I said, if I claim I am president, I don't be a president. This is same thing they are doing. Can you tell who is "enough people"? Many Muslims against it. If you have enough people who agree with you that you are the president and are willing to kill people who don't agree with them, then you and them are a problem. That's the situation here. It doesn't matter how many people are against it. It matters how many maniacs are murdering people in your name. It matters how many maniacs ISIS has agreeing that they are Islamic and are willing to kill for it. Your denial is worthless. It stops nobody from dying. You and them disagree about who is correct,
I can prove they are wrong using Qur'an and Hadiths, theycan't. I repeat, your denial is worthless. It stops nobody from dying. It's probably academically correct, and yet look how much that matters. It's not stopping them from calling themselves Islamic, and it's not stopping people from joining them when they realize they aren't following Islamic teachings. This is my whole point. We can all agree they are not Islamic, but we don't matter. The people who agree with them and will pick up weapons and murder innocent people to spread their ideology are what matters. but what does this ultimately matter as they're killing people?
They are killing people and I disagree with them. They shouldn't do these sort of things. But spreading false thing about Islam is matter to me. The fact remains they have sympathizers and supporters significant enough in numbers to make them relevant.
They're mostly political supporters and I am sure they have political things in mind when doing these cruelty. No, they are political supporters, and they are armed maniacs murdering people who dare to disagree with them. There are enough people murdering for them to be relevant. All the denials of how Islamic they are is not going to stop them from killing. That's the whole thing: they're relevant because they have support. It may not be your Islam,
Supporters mostly are political supporters and yes, it isn't Islam, yet, people say Islam just because they claim they are which is kinda stupid. but that hardly matters when their purpose is to spread their form of violent Islam.
There is only one Islam. Don't claim there is 2, peace Islam and violent Islam. Only one. If Islam doesn't teach or tell any of these, how can it be Islam? They are more or likely forming new religion and have political gains. Like it or not, there are more versions of Islam than yours. Religious movements split all the time over their values. You trying to disavow any other religion has no more merit than any other religion disavowing yours. I'm not making any argument as to what ISIS is because ultimately I don't care, I'm just repeating what they call themselves. They have enough people who agree with their form of Islam to be relevant.
Why? Because medias tell they are doing it because of Islam, which is wrong and people who don't know about Islam, believe it and support that statement. Spreading false thing and telling it is relevant isn't relevant. No, it's because these people agree with their violent means. Don't blame the media, it's a copout and it's not at all grounded in reality. If their form of Islam was so anathema to all Muslims, they wouldn't have enough support to be relevant.
Are you claiming all Muslims support them? Only a some Muslims who ISIS brainwashed support it and mostly are political supporters. Contradicting Islam and claiming it is Islam doesn't make it Islam. They are obviously making new religion with their own rules.  I am not claiming all Muslims support them. I am claiming enough people who self-identify as Muslim support their form of Islam for them to be able to recruit, murder, and recruit more. I'm fine with them being known as a different religion. But first they'll have to stop calling themselves Islamic. That's your problem with them, not mine. ----------------- I am not attacking you Muhammed Zakir. I believe you wish to live a moral life under the rules of your religion, and you do not condone violence committed by ISIS. I believe their form of Islam is not in keeping with the Islam you practice. I am not even calling them Islamic. When I repeat that, I'm repeating what they call themselves. If this was a group of 10 people in the desert, it wouldn't matter. But ISIS is tens of thousands strong. They recruit from all over the world. They are able to recruit because their violence resonates with some people for some reason. And after ISIS, there is Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and probably many other groups I don't even know about who all have similar violent ideologies and also self-identify as Islamic. This is a very troubling number of people committing violence in the name of Islam, and I already know it's forbidden by you and good Muslims everywhere, but that's changing nothing. We can all agree this is a false Islam, but that's an academic point. It does nothing to stop the movement, to stop the killing, and as a non-religious person, all I care about is that people stop killing other people. I don't care if they're bad Muslims, or non-Muslims; they're bad people, but they are drawn to a violent message, and they think that message fits with Islam for some reason, whether they are academically right or wrong seems rather irrelevant at that point to me. |
|
|
|
Even if each individual officer is legally required to sign up for liability insurance personally, the government will always find a way to reimburse them for that expense with taxpayer dollars, no matter what any law says.
I can't buy into this without your explanation of the reasoning which brought you here. Care to explain? Wolves do not eat themselves when there are sheep aplenty. Even if each individual officer is legally required to sign up for liability insurance personally, the government will always find a way to reimburse them for that expense with taxpayer dollars, no matter what any law says.
I can't buy into this without your explanation of the reasoning which brought you here. Care to explain? Most likely it would be included in their wadge or as a benefit. It would be very similar to doctors and their insurance I would guess. I don't see them making officers pay for a insurance and take a paycut. Insurance premium would be a wage bump or a benefit, and the deductible for legal representation/court costs/fines in case of crimes/civil rights violations committed under color of authority will also be paid by another name, with taxpayer dollars, as always. Of course there is effectively no need for insurance at all, when courts almost always grant government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al ad nauseam.You make it sound like there are never settlements related to police brutality/false imprisonment/civil rights violations. That's highly inaccurate. |
|
|
|
I was wrong in mocking the bible! I have just seen evidence of a real miracle contained within the book, that leads me to believe the bible is completely accurate. Here, see for yourselves:  Taken from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal Comics, http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3702. Anyone who posts an SMBC comic is all right by me. My favorite cartoonist is Zach Weinersmith. |
|
|
|
Dear Muslims, get it through your polygamous skulls, Christianity does not have a pope. That is catholicms. Two radically different faiths based on the same bible.
I don't think this is accurate. Catholicism and Christianity are not different religions because Christianity is just the broadest category of the subset. Catholicism is a type of Christianity, as is Protestantism, Presbyterianism, Mormonism, and many others. The same way as there are many sects of Islam: Sunni, Shia, Sufi, etc. False. You are wrong. try again Muslim Chrisitianity discreditor. Sorry, mate, look it up and you'll see you are wrong. And in the meantime, try not to be a twat. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations |
|
|
|
Apparently the guy who shot the suspect wasn't a police officer: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a0_1428891056I had no idea they allowed rich civilian donors to play police officers without the regular formal training. It was a disaster waiting to happen, and now it happened. What I also find strange is that he wasn't able to tell the difference between a gun and a Taser. But I guess that might be down to the fact that he isn't even trained to be a police officer. This is F*cking crazy! SO if I give the cops enough money I can be a cop on the weekends? Who gives this untrained old guy a gun and lets him play cop anyways? Even if he wasn't a cop the other cops are complete dicks and out ofline . Guy gets shot, the other cop puts his knee on the dudes dome. Guy is saying he cant breath and the cop replied "F*ck your breath". This is what the militarization of the police force does, it creates a us vs them mentality and them are treated below humans. It is the same principle with soldiers in Iraq, the decensitizing of the people you are fighting. No big deal with accidently killed that guy he was jsut a dumb ass haji. No, this isn't true. See the link I posted directly above (or below!) for context. He was a trained law officer assigned to the Violent Crimes Task Force and had specialized training in homicide investigations.http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepage1/updated-district-attorney-steve-kunzweiler-charges-reserve-deputy-with-second/article_883e0747-46e9-595d-9c4f-e1cb4fdabbf4.html?mode=story |
|
|
|
She has good chances of winning the coming elections. What do you say people?
I'm outside of the touch line but I think unfortunately she has a good chance. That's not unreasonable. No worthwhile democratic challenger means an easy democratic nomination, and that automatically means a 50% chance to win. |
|
|
|
You can easily know the father of the child by dna test. This is not written in koran?
DNA can give estimated results not accurate. DNA tests can exclude with 100% accuracy and include with 99.99% probability. That's enough in my book. (My book is science.) They define it as probability. Yes, it can tell who is your father sometimes but not all time and you will have to rely on probability mostly. When paternal parent issue comes, when 4 husbands are invloved, it is not that easy. Also think what they will do if more than one sperm fertilizes the egg? It is very complex and lead to complex situations. This can theoretically be enough but practically it isn't.(not always) Yes, they define it as probability because that's what it is. Only in religion do they teach you a "fact" that is not a fact. I also don't think you understand 99.99% probability. They can only establish 99.99% probability of who your father is as well. Do you think he is not your father because they can't say 100%? Two sperm from different men cannot fertilize the same egg. It's biologically impossible. You are not countering scientific facts with anything credible. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
