You said "Communists love destroying history". If that's not the same as saying "all communists love destroying history" then what does that mean? |
|
|
|
Ta vision est très pessimiste et fausse: il y a énormément de magasins officiels (et même en France) qui acceptent BTC. Actuellement on peut presque tout acheter en BTC tant que la somme n'excède pas un certain seuil: Acheter un smartphone, aucun problème; par contre, acheter une voiture neuve c'est plus difficile.
Ta réponse est hors-sujet. J'ai parlé d'usage. Pas de possibilité. Personne n'achète quoi que ce soit avec du BTC au quotidien. |
|
|
|
Are you starting to see what Communism is all about yet? This is what it is about. Casting false and excessive blame, hiding the real story, and virtue signalling to the world all to feed their narcissistic desires of projection. You might not like me or my ideas very much but I am not cheering great historical monuments in your nation burning. Communists love destroying history, it makes it easier to use the most reliable and simple tricks over and over again.
"Communists love destroying history" I don't like destroying history. Does that make me not a communist? Or does that mean that communism isn't "loving destroying history" but it's just a crazy person doing that? |
|
|
|
Conservatives of all stripes overwhelmed the Twitter responses to Cher’s original tweet, but liberals peeked in here and there to criticize the singer for everything from her own net worth to her supposed lack of understanding on the issue.
The Left is destroying their moderate base, even destroying people who hates Trump like Cher... Not a smart move (for them).
Hmm... Seems logical to me calling her an hypocrite and a coward. Wasn't she calling for welcoming immegration something like 2 years ago? Claiming we should all "open our arms" and shit like this? Changing her word like this just when she's asked to participate via her city is proof she's a stupid lying cunt. Seems logical to call her this. |
|
|
|
This entire event has supported the idea that our society values materials more than the lives of poor black and brown people around the world. France has so many wrongs to right around the world yet they are completely tone-deaf to the loss of a single building. It takes a complete naiveness towards one's privilege to use words like "devastated" and "tragedy" to describe the loss of the roof to a church you went inside one time on vacation. Sickening.
Wtf? Also, the heretical Catholic Church is a huge scam. If they were actually a Christian Church, they would have auctioned off most of that art for helping the poor long ago. Now they are taking donations instead of rebuilding with their own immense wealth. They could solve world hunger if they wanted, but choose not to. Shame on all parties. Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” And what's the link? What the hell dude?? Losing a building that is just the symbol of a country and its history IS a tragedy. Much more than the death of a few hundred people, being brown, yellow, white or blue. Why the fuck Church being a scam makes the loss of Notre Dame ok? WTF is the link between French "wrongs" whatever they may be, and the catastrophe of having such symbol taken down by fire? What's next? "oh whole Paris was destroyed by fire, but let's be realistic 1 million people die worldwide by lack of water so crying on something like this is sickening"?? |
|
|
|
Quelque chose me tracasse la dedans. Le Bitcoin est a la base une monnaie décentralisée, et créée dans le but de contrer le systeme banquaire actuel, génial! Le probleme c'est qu'aujourd'hui, la voie que le Bitcoin prend n'est autre que la voie classique de la finance, par exemple les fameux ETFs, et cherche plus a se faire une place dans le systeme économique que de se battre contre.
Donc quand on essayera d'expliquer au gens que le BTC c'est cool et qu'on peut lui faire confiance, n'y verront ils pas juste un produit spéculatif bien intégré dans le systeme?
En même temps le BTC n'est qu'un produit spéculatif et il le restera très certainement. Le BTC ne va pas contrer le système bancaire, il va gentiment l'épouser. De toute façon le BTC aujourd'hui ne sert qu'à deux choses: -Spéculer (97% de son usage) -Acheter des trucs sur les plateforme deepweb (2% de son usage) Et en plus y a genre... Trois connards qui croient que c'est la révolution du siècle et que ça permet enfin de se détacher des banques et qui convertissent tout leur fiat en cryptos. Mais voilà c'est tout. Spéculation ou marchés louches. Point. |
|
|
|
Still, as the number of vandalism and started fire of French churches only grew these last years, suspicion of a criminal burning can't be completely discarded.
And has anyone ever been arrested for previous vandalism? People have been joking the government would blame this on Quasimodo. We almost never see these mentioned in the news, I don't even know church burnings is a thing in France now. If it wasn't Notre Dame, we probably wouldn't even hear about this. Problem is that they never catch anyone. The vandals aren't protected or whatever like some conspiracists like to say, but churches are by nature open buildings where anyone can enter. And in lots of places at any hour. It makes it easy to destroy them. |
|
|
|
Yesterday flame burned down Notre Dame at paris, the 850 years old cathedral has suffered unprecedented damages after a night of fire despite the work of the firefighters: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47941794 An investigation was started this morning to know if the fire was criminal or accidental. As the cathedrale was under renovation and the fire started at the location of the renovation work where the chemical products and machines were stored, accidental origin is a privileged explanation right now. Still, as the number of vandalism and started fire of French churches only grew these last years, suspicion of a criminal burning can't be completely discarded. Governments and people worldwide have expressed there sympathies for this huge cultural loss and offered their help (whatever that means). I'm in Paris, I've visited the cathedrale a few times, I can confirm the burning hurted it deeply. It was a wonderful monument, even if I'm not too fond of the symbols of the past and of religion, it's really sad to see that. |
|
|
|
That's because it was a loaded question cheese dick. Yes the one who initiated an assault has no right to then claim assault when the person they just attacked fights back, that is how the law works.
Hmm... No... If someone pushes you you don't have the right to shot him with a shotgun. Proportional use of force. So this is not how the law works but how you wished it works. Which just shows what a crazy nutsack you are. Glad there is a country for you, please stop invading others with that extremist religous mentality of yours. As usual you don't have any clue what you are talking about. The laws vary from state to state, some states have "stand your ground" laws where once some one instigates violence against you, you have no requirement to retreat and are legally authorized to use lethal force if you are in fear for your life. For reference here is some information on how the California self defense laws work. https://cinteanlaw.com/california-stand-ground-law/The man in California was assaulted. He attempted to flee but was pursued by MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS. This is WELL WITHIN the standard of fearing for life or injury as set by California code. Additionally because of the fact it was MULTIPLE people pursuing him, the use of a weapon is COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED and proportional use of force. You can boo hoo about proportional use of force all you want, but how is one man supposed to defend himself from multiple assailants without a weapon? What is proportional about fighting off multiple attackers bare handed? We have the right to self defense in this country, we aren't forced to be subjects and victims in waiting like you in your nation, and I am grateful for it. You don't get to assault people then cry they fought back, that's not how it works. The moral of the story? DON'T FUCKING ASSAULT PEOPLEahahahahah So if you want to get rid of anyone according to TECSHARE: -Insult that someone and harass him as much as you can -Wait for him to be so upset or frightenned that he pushes you -This is a physical assault you have the right to defend yourself!!! -Empty a magazine in his belly, he shouldn't have assaulted you You're not only crazy you're also obviously stupid. Ready to bet money on the verdict here? The guy will be found guilty of disproportional force use. And that's a good thing. You don't defend yourself from a fistfight with a fucking sword. Even is that's what your crazy liberal paradise is about. |
|
|
|
Hmm... C'est 6 mois d'habitation sur place je suppose comme partout?
Du coup ça veut dire que le plan c'est BTC -> stable coin -> 6 mois de vacances au Lux (officiellement en tout cas) -> revente au Lux
Une fois en fiat tu auras par contre des taxes pour sortir ton argent du lux je pense. A vérifier en tout cas. Ah, même en investissement entreprise? Après tout je suis pas assez vieux pour prendre ma retraite. Ca me va bien d'investir dans ma boîte avec l'argent du BTC. |
|
|
|
That's because it was a loaded question cheese dick. Yes the one who initiated an assault has no right to then claim assault when the person they just attacked fights back, that is how the law works.
Hmm... No... If someone pushes you you don't have the right to shot him with a shotgun. Proportional use of force. So this is not how the law works but how you wished it works. Which just shows what a crazy nutsack you are. Glad there is a country for you, please stop invading others with that extremist religous mentality of yours. |
|
|
|
Cela dit je ne cautionne pas ton envie d'éviter l'impot. On revient en marge sur le débat GJ via ta remarque "payer des impôts à la place du CAC40". Je ne souhaite pas relancer le débat mais le CAC paye ses impôts, que ce soit directement sur son CA/ses bénéfices, ou au moins indirectement via les emplois qu'il créée dans le cas de sociétés qui ne jouent pas le jeu (comme LVMH par exemple).
Je trouve pas top la position de dire ils le font bien, alors je fais pareil. Et ceux qui ont besoin des aides financées avec mes impots peuvent crever la bouche ouverte.
Je comprends. Mais on en revient toujours au même débat. Tu es pour le "bon comportement" du "bon petit citoyen". Tu es pour le changement démocratique et pacifiste. Tu es pour "faire au mieux" sans faire exploser le système. Tout à ton honneur. Je crois que tu sous estimes immensément le niveau de corruption systémique de notre pays. Je suis pour son explosion totale et la guerre civile. Donc forcément on a pas les mêmes attitudes ^^ Pour moi payer tes impôts à l'heure actuelle c'est ni plus ni moins que de la collaboration. Mais j'ai conscience d'être un poil extrémiste hein. Je t'en veux pas (trop) de payer tes impôts  Cela dit, dernière précision pour le Lux, tu dois être résident fiscal pour en profiter. Si tu ne l'es pas les infos seront immédiatement transmises aux gouvernements français/canadien le cas échéant.
Hmm... C'est 6 mois d'habitation sur place je suppose comme partout? Du coup ça veut dire que le plan c'est BTC -> stable coin -> 6 mois de vacances au Lux (officiellement en tout cas) -> revente au Lux |
|
|
|
The burden of proof is definitely on you to prove that the meaning of the book is not what the author said the meaning of the book was...
Author never said book was about communism. He said it was about Stalinism... Go ahead, prove it if you can. Quote him. But stop making things up. Don't bother. This is more comtard logic from mOgLie. BuT iTs Not TrUe COmMuNiSm! I didn't think I would have to prove something written is the source you were giving me Oo |
|
|
|
The burden of proof is definitely on you to prove that the meaning of the book is not what the author said the meaning of the book was...
Author never said book was about communism. He said it was about Stalinism... Go ahead, prove it if you can. Quote him. But stop making things up. That's... That's from YOUR SOURCE!!! "Orwell described Animal Farm as a satirical tale against Stalin" Can you at LEAST read your own source please, |
|
|
|
The burden of proof is definitely on you to prove that the meaning of the book is not what the author said the meaning of the book was...
Author never said book was about communism. He said it was about Stalinism... |
|
|
|
Right from the horse's mouth. According to Orwell, the fable reflects events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and then on into the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_FarmYes, Soviet Union parctices and political regime... Not communism... Edit: I stop it here, you're both far too dumb and brainwashed to be able to just TRY to understand anything not on your book. |
|
|
|
I have just one question for you...
And you clearly avoided mine. You're one to talk about logical fallacies and diversions. But if you think that the one initiating the illegal act is responsible for everything legally, I'm just going to quote this to you anytime you discuss law in any way. This is one of the most stupid things I've ever read here. |
|
|
|
|
For fuck's sake that's not something difficult to understand!
If you insult me and I push you, should you have the right to kill me? Or mutilate me?
Yes or no question. Nothing else.
|
|
|
|
I am not advocating for anything. -snip- You don't get to assault people then cry when they defend themselves, sorry.
No you're clearly not advocating for anything. You're a psychopath. But you're not alone, tons of people here agree with you. Just happy you have a country on your own. You're all just saying "it's ok to mutilate someone if they pushed you" Wahou. |
|
|
|
Thank you for providing even more evidence you don't have two brain cells to rub together to form a cogent reply. I can't blame you though, you would probably stop breathing if you stopped to think that long.
Dude you're advocating the right for someone to MUTILATE someone else if they dare pushing you. What do you want? You're even worse than Islamist fundamentalist. Even Sharia law doesn't allow that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
