Hey, I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings but I'd say the only winners will be Europeans 

I'll take the example of France, cause a citizen it's the country I know the best.
I'd say that in case of a WW3, France would be completely neutral and wouldn't even lose one soldier.

Why so? Well easy as a pie. We got the Bomb H along with 7 nuclear submarines, a total of 480 bombs can be launched at any time anywhere on the Earth. It's enough to destroy any nation, even Russia, China or USA (though maybe not the 3 of them).
Now, why would anyone try to invade us? Why fighting us?
We got literally NOTHING you would want! Our main resources are corns and our culture. There is no interest for any nation to risk being destroyed by our nuclear power.

So I would say that France and probably a good part of Europe would stay neutral, and that no one would try to invade us. Just because we have nothing of interest, main resources are Oil and Iron, we don't have much of both ^^

For me we would be the winners, because we would be the one not fighting. Especially as they can fight by the other side of the world, it would even be shorter to go through the Pacific ocean =)

Just wanna say that you're not totally right.
Money is different from power. In our current society, which is a rather peaceful one whatever one's could argue, money is deeply linked to power.

But when a society crashes, then we go back to the basics. The power, the real power, is the number of humans fighting, and the weapons they have. The people can, at anytime, in any of our civilized country, revolt and put down the head of the state to create a new order.

But well, where you're right is that "can" and "they will do it" are totally different, as long as we actually believe that money = power it will be the case :/

AHAHAHAHAH 
You sir, actually made me laugh xD

For sure, compared to most politicians, having only a schyzo seems fair enough!
(Though Trump is much worse than just a schyzo of course)

Yeah! Your nation would be even more free than now! You'd have even more inequalities than today! Awesome no?

I really can't understand the American dream it seems ^^
But what you're asking for is basically the end of any kind of state, USA government doesn't have much power over its citizens compared to European states for example, especially compared to France, so lowering this power would mean state role would basically be to take care of the military stuff.

I'm not criticizing though, I can't understand how you would want that but as long as it's what you want, who am I to tell you it's the worst choice ever? If you want to be the first country in the world in inequalities, your choice 
(It will grant you another "1st nation of the world title", along with being the first nation in terms of number of prisoner per habitant, and number of people believing angels are real ^^)

My own goals: to be happy with my lovely wife and be sure that I'll always be able to take care of her and protect her. To make sure she's happy and safe. To make sure that I have enough to take care of my family and my dearest friends. To build something that will improve the world and the country in which I had the luck to be born.

My own precepts: Let people do whatever they want if it makes them happy as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Always help if it doesn't cost you more than what the people in need deserve. Don't follow the rules that you know are unfair.

And I also want to build my own company cause I hate working for someone. Nothing tremendous as you can see.

No I'm an agnostic. Which is slightly different though we have in common to not follow this incredibly stupid and full of insanity book of the faith which is the Bible (but don't worry the others sacred books are at the same level of inconsistency and nonsense ) and it seems that you have a problem with that...
And I was not arguing with you here, but explaining that atheists have their own purposes and don't follow any arbitrary God rules that's all. You don't have to care about atheists goals as you seem to follow only the sacred laws written 2 millenias ago...

I don't understand your sentence. I suppose you wanted to write "the king of England" but she's a queen so I'm not even sure you wanted to say that.
And I don't see the link between your sentence and what I've said... I explained that atheists follow their own rules and goals, and that their main purpose is to be happy and loved. What's the link with the queen of England?

May you define your notion of religion then? Because maybe we disagree on the definition and that's all. And as it is a very complex notion, it might be possible.



And that's the main difference between atheist and religious: atheists have their own goals, religious follow a higher goal/guideline, which is god.

And what you're saying is wrong, I understand what you're trying to explain but that's not true
There is more than 7 billion people. Each of them have their own goals. So what is the purpose of the universe then? The average one? The most common one?
If there was only one human then I would understand your point, from his point of view his goals would be the only one existing in the universe. But that's not the case.

What you're saying is extremely arrogant for talking for each and everyone of us.

An atheist is someone thinking there is no purpose in the universe. But does it mean he has to commit suicide out of dispair? No of course not. Because thinking there is no purpose to the universe doesn't mean you can't have any will or any purpose yourself.

You don't have to follow a divine guideline to be happy, to just understand the basic satisfaction of love and good health. That's the goal of most of us: to find someone to love and be happy.

There is absolutely no link between that and any kind of religion...

Seems like there is no more account to give away =)

But he sent some accounts to the first who asked!

Hey guys! Thanks for your answers.

I never went on Kraken, I was on CEX, BTCE and Yobit. But I've got to say that the features on Kraken seem amazing!

Gonna try that, thanks again.

No of course not. It's just because we have a strong property right. Nothing to do with socialism whatsoever. Nothing. 

Well thanks for the introduction. Seems like you won't see this answer but you know what? If "lots of your firends" are giving out boats for free, then you and your friends are all rich dumbasses. You don't get a boat like this for free, that's just a lie. You get boats like this in such a poor state it's cheaper to buy a new one than to repair it for free yes, but not a functionnal boat.

And you may find me insulting or rude, but I find your stupidity insulting sir.

Do you want to get ignored too? Cause that's how you get ignored!

I'll give you a clue! Humans need oxygene in the exact same way plants need CO2 ok? And you know what happens if I double the rate of oxygene in the air you breath? YOU DIE!

It's exactly the same thing for each and every element, and too much CO2 leads to plants literaly dying of suffocation. Though it's not the main problem of CO2 pollution, but you're maybe in the same guideline as the others idiots explaining that "NASA is lying that's all"...

Seems like we don't have the same definition because as far as I saw there IS a fucking statistically significant rise! That's why I was trying to agree with you on a defenition of going up... A mathematical one.

And I don't care about how you prove what you're saying, but just writing a sentence in which you say he's lying is not a proof. Otherwise I could do the same here:

"Didn't you here about Total which managed to lobby so strong that they made people believe CO2 is good for the planet? Here is what theyr wrote in a mail:
Dude, it's incredible how CO2 is going to fuck everything up, but the good point is that as we control the media we'll be able to make America actually believe it's good for the planet, as it's what the plants need to survive LOL!"

Just putting it in italics is not exactly a proof you know...

I understand your very American need of free speech, and I respect that. But free speech by itself seems totally useless to me. It's great to be able to speak as you wish, but if it's to see a bunch of people talking total nonsense without any kind of proof and just persuading each other, I don't really see how it should reassure me 

And the Paris party has nothing to do with all that, it's just a political party. They're here to tell the people "see, we're taking care of you" and they will pollute even more... But that's exactly like the dozens of false promises of our politicians.

No what you've done before is writing a sentence stating he lied. Again no proof of any kind. If I write " Spendulus wrote a mail in which he stated that he loved bananas" it doesn"t mean that you love bananas.

I don't know how it is possible Oo
Do we have the same definition of "going up"? Can't you see that each and EVERY ONE of the graphs you showed are actually going up? Without stopping? And by all I really mean ALL!!!

I'm really astonished, it's like pointing to the sky saying "it's blue" and you answer me no it's dark green. I don't think we'll be able to go any further from here xD

Ok maybe let's define what "going up" means. You're talking about the last two decades ok? So the values concerned are those from 1994 to 2014 we're good on that? (I don't put 2015 as it's just finished) Now what do you say about the definition of "going up" as "the graph can be approximate by a linear curve with a positive growth"? Or define "going up" yourself!

I was not quoting him, to quote is to take one's words, I just put a link to his article because I wanted you to look at the graph from the met that had nothing to do with what you showed me.

Well your graph just prove my point dude! You were saying there was no warming in the last two decades, well the graph shows there is a +0.33 warming! It's even writen on it? You can't read?

And the other 20 graphs you linked to show the fucking incredible warming since 1979... Thanks for proving my point!

And yeah you got banned because you say totally nonsense and ignore facts under the dubious reason that "NASA is lying that's all". Yeah, NASA, and also every weather institute.

So how is it not having tv and internet? Cause it'"s also NASA work you know?

Was waiting for your answer. I give you one last chance of proving that stupidity has limits.

Answering the question I managed to read on your picture:
-Here is a video of earth spinning https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVuqcEuIRgs
-Color of the ocean highly depends on the season, which part of the ocean you photograph, the average temperature, the density of clouds. Those are just the major factors, there are lots more to deal with but if you'd manage to get all those parameters identical, you would have something rather correct.
-how big is America is totally dependent on where you're looking from! The Earth is round, so any part of the ball appears bigger or smaller depending on how you watch it! The photos you're showing are never taken from the same angle so OF COURSE America is not the same size, the contrary would mean that Earth is not round you dumbass.

And I don't remember the other questions, but you got the idea.

And if you don't trust NASA, I bet you don't use airplanes? Cause they work solely on NASA measurements for flights.