You made out that Christianity started the crusades..NO it was Islam first to go around the world and make people believe in that religion or die  .. But you did make out the crusades started first by the Christians?..YES YOU DID.. Hmm... No. I can't say much more... I mean, learn to read man. It was not my argument. It was the one of kryptqnick. I really can't argument more than that as you're not making a point against me... All I did was to correct your "history" to say that the first "crusades" were the conquest of the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy CHRISTIAN Roman Empire. Is this your quote?..I just love how all those people have "arguments" based on "facts and actual data" contrary to "leftists". But when you actually corner them to their shitty ideas with History, seems like they just disappear. they just disappear..I never disappeared shitty ideas with History..No you said crusades and i pointed out Muslims started the crusades first .. Just a correction to your HISTORY so lets still be friends  .. Oh ok I understand. So again Muslim didn't started the crusades, Catholic Roman Empire started them. And for your quote, I wasn't talking about the crusade here but answering to Spendulus and how he just avoided to answer my posts as soon as they have facts and data in them. |
|
|
|
I don't understand, there was two choices for first lady but that wasn't those ones...
You had the choice between the Trump bimbo and the Clinton dick.
The relation between Bill Clinton and Hillary was more of a professional partnership than a marital relation. I would be very surprised if Bill ever had sex with Hillary. Hilalry is known to be a bisexual (if not a lesbian) and she is not attracted to men. Even the paternity of Chelsea is disputed, although I would not claim that her father is Janet Reno.  Oh ok, didn't know. That explains the answer I got... I guess? I'm not exactly very found of people secrets personnal life... Especially concerning Hilary sexual life xD |
|
|
|
You made out that Christianity started the crusades..NO it was Islam first to go around the world and make people believe in that religion or die .. But you did make out the crusades started first by the Christians?..YES YOU DID.. Hmm... No. I can't say much more... I mean, learn to read man. It was not my argument. It was the one of kryptqnick. I really can't argument more than that as you're not making a point against me... All I did was to correct your "history" to say that the first "crusades" were the conquest of the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy CHRISTIAN Roman Empire. |
|
|
|
|
Depends on what you're looking for.
Casino games (roulette, blackjack, slots...): Fortune Jack. Old as fuck, never saw a scamming accusation, perfectly safe.
Dice: Yolodice, a bit new but very cool, provably fair and no one complained about payments. Already a 250BTC bankroll
|
|
|
|
Natural gas exports from Russia to the European Union was measured at 179.3 billion cubic meters in 2016, the highest ever for a single year. This is a major blow to the Americans and the Arabs, who were attempting to sabotage the supplies. Also, this means increase in tax revenue for the Russian treasury.  That's also why I say Europe should tell USA to go fuck themselves and become friend with Russia. Russia and Europe have always been very close, until Napoleon divided the two and then USA made sure we never came back all together. Russia + Europe = a whole fucking continent of natural ressources. No one could stop us. We could finally stop abiding this ridiculous American economical system. And this horrible American culture. |
|
|
|
OK guys.... There were two choices for the post of "first lady". The first choice was Melania Trump, a 46-year old ex-model. The second choice was Huma Abedin, a 40-year old politician with pro-ISIS sympathies. I am glad that the American voters went with the first choice.
Wut? I don't understand, there was two choices for first lady but that wasn't those ones... You had the choice between the Trump bimbo and the Clinton dick. |
|
|
|
I'm starting to consider trying my hand at localbitcoins and similar, but while researching I keep coming across claims that SEPA transfers cannot be trusted because the sender can recall them. Can anyone give me a definitive answer on this, please, as I have worked in a European bank and have never known a SEPA transfer to be returned without the express written consent of the beneficiary.
Thanks.
Hey, I hang a lot at localbitcoin. I buy and sell BTC essentially with SEPA. And never got any problem. Theoretically SEPA transfer can be asked back by a bank, but for that the person doing the transfer must lie to the bank stating that he was not the one who made the transfer and he got pirated... Never happened. |
|
|
|
|
Well, long time I haven't come in this thread...
But glad to know opinions seem to have evolved a bit in the "good direction". "Good direction" here meaning "in the same direction than my personal opinion" of course ^^
I just don't see the point of free rights for everyone to hold a gun.
And I don't see how you can give right to everyone to own a gun but not to own a bomb.
So it goes rather quickly to the massive number of weapons for everyone and mass destructive power...
|
|
|
|
..... Yeah, so decent arguments that you stopped answering me when I proved you wrong  I just love how all those people have "arguments" based on "facts and actual data" contrary to "leftists". But when you actually corner them to their shitty ideas with History, seems like they just disappear. Frankly I did not think the attitude that seemed to be displayed by your comments was worth responding to. You don't get anywhere by pronouncing yourself having proved someone wrong. That's in your own head. The things you said were rather superficial. Damn, Iraq war and USA support to the most important terrorist group of the last decades was "rather superficial"  If only I had known. I guess that talking about how uncivilized current Islam is if much more important indeed! |
|
|
|
I don't have anything against muslims themselves. My husband's mother married a Muslim and he is a very nice guy, a lot better than most of people in my country (at least because he doesn't drink and we have a problem with drinking in my country since a bottle of vodka costs 1.5$). So, let's rather speak about the intentions of religion. I read 1/2 of Quran (in translation, so for Muslims it is not really Quran) and watched a few documentaries. It is indeed a violent religion. But so is judaism and christianity. It all depends on the people and how they see it. Just think about the Crusades being done for Christianity.
Thats around 750 years ago. The problem is muslims are acting like its the dark ages in today.Maybe because its the dark ages for them --' What makes the dark ages: poverty? Check political instability? Check no separation of powers? Check importance of religion? Check No education? Check As for the "Crusades and Christianity," the Crusades were largely attempts to get back lands that Muslims had conquered by force. Yeah, so decent arguments that you stopped answering me when I proved you wrong I just love how all those people have "arguments" based on "facts and actual data" contrary to "leftists". But when you actually corner them to their shitty ideas with History, seems like they just disappear. I thinks you need to do some HISTORY ..A little lesson below .. The Crusades were started by the Muslims in the year 630 A.D. when Muhammad invaded and conquered Mecca. Later on, Muslims invaded Syria, Iraq, Jerusalem, Iran, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Italy, France, etc. 638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines. 638—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, The Western Crusades started around 1095 to try to stop the Islamic aggressive invasions. 465 years later the Christians crusades started..And only to fight ISLAM .. RELIGION OF PEACE .. 2 facts: 1/It was not my argument so I don't know why you answer to me like that. 2/If you want to go this way let's go. Why did the Muslim Crusaders conquered and annex Jerusalem? That's right, because the Christians (aka Roman empire) conquered the whole part first. Religion of peace |
|
|
|
I don't have anything against muslims themselves. My husband's mother married a Muslim and he is a very nice guy, a lot better than most of people in my country (at least because he doesn't drink and we have a problem with drinking in my country since a bottle of vodka costs 1.5$). So, let's rather speak about the intentions of religion. I read 1/2 of Quran (in translation, so for Muslims it is not really Quran) and watched a few documentaries. It is indeed a violent religion. But so is judaism and christianity. It all depends on the people and how they see it. Just think about the Crusades being done for Christianity.
Thats around 750 years ago. The problem is muslims are acting like its the dark ages in today.Maybe because its the dark ages for them --' What makes the dark ages: poverty? Check political instability? Check no separation of powers? Check importance of religion? Check No education? Check As for the "Crusades and Christianity," the Crusades were largely attempts to get back lands that Muslims had conquered by force. Yeah, so decent arguments that you stopped answering me when I proved you wrong I just love how all those people have "arguments" based on "facts and actual data" contrary to "leftists". But when you actually corner them to their shitty ideas with History, seems like they just disappear. |
|
|
|
You misunderstand, I'm not shrugging it off by any means. I think it's a despicable and cowardly ideology, and I'm not trying to put the blame on anyone. I'm merely stating that certain actions by the west (specifically the USA) may well have contributed to the radical Islamic uprising that we see today.
My point was also that it is a common misconception that radical islamic attacks, especially suicide bombings are some sort of medieval ideology.
Suicide bombings are a very new phenomenon, I think the first instance where we see these types of attacks en masse, are in the 1980s during the alliance of Hafez al-Assad and Ruhollah Khomeini (who was the leader of Iran after the Shah was overthrown in the revolution). They used this new form of suicide attacks to force American troops from Lebanon.
And it is important to note how advanced the Islamic world was in the "Golden Age" (between the 8th and 13th centuries), because it shows that it isn't necessarily the muslim religion or the teachings of the Quran that are the driving force behind the radicalism we see today. At this period in history the Islamic world was seeking knowledge, and developing and translating mathematics, philosophy and science in general. This is in stark contrast to the attitudes we see today from the radical islamists.
It's no-ones fault (apart from the actual terrorists) that this is happening, per se, I just think it's short sighted to put it all down to "the Quran is bad and teaches muslims to kill infidels" (which is what many people believe).
Again, I'm not blaming anyone or shrugging anything off - I'm just commenting that it is an extremely complicated situation that has many factors which may or may not have caused it, and to just blame "Islam" seems naive. I think all religion is bullshit, for the record.
Lol. No-ones fault. Not like the terrorists are mainly all from poor and enslaved countries, without any education because all the institution were destroyed by war. So you're telling me that if country A destabilizes country B, kills dozens of thousands of civilians of country B, destroy entire cities of country B, and then a bunch of terrorists emerge from country B to attack country A. If all that happens country A is not responsible? Well great to know! |
|
|
|
You misunderstand, I'm not shrugging it off by any means. I think it's a despicable and cowardly ideology, and I'm not trying to put the blame on anyone. I'm merely stating that certain actions by the west (specifically the USA) may well have contributed to the radical Islamic uprising that we see today.
My point was also that it is a common misconception that radical islamic attacks, especially suicide bombings are some sort of medieval ideology.
Suicide bombings are a very new phenomenon, I think the first instance where we see these types of attacks en masse, are in the 1980s during the alliance of Hafez al-Assad and Ruhollah Khomeini (who was the leader of Iran after the Shah was overthrown in the revolution). They used this new form of suicide attacks to force American troops from Lebanon.
And it is important to note how advanced the Islamic world was in the "Golden Age" (between the 8th and 13th centuries), because it shows that it isn't necessarily the muslim religion or the teachings of the Quran that are the driving force behind the radicalism we see today. At this period in history the Islamic world was seeking knowledge, and developing and translating mathematics, philosophy and science in general. This is in stark contrast to the attitudes we see today from the radical islamists.
It's no-ones fault (apart from the actual terrorists) that this is happening, per se, I just think it's short sighted to put it all down to "the Quran is bad and teaches muslims to kill infidels" (which is what many people believe).
Again, I'm not blaming anyone or shrugging anything off - I'm just commenting that it is an extremely complicated situation that has many factors which may or may not have caused it, and to just blame "Islam" seems naive. I think all religion is bullshit, for the record.
Interesting. We share many views, although they diverse from similar premises. For example, I agree either to just blame (or not blame) Islam is naive. But similarly one cannot just throw some historical events up in the air (Golden Age, Crusades, whatever) and shout "See! what about THAT? That proves that..." No, that does not prove anything. To actually draw cause and effect even in part takes some historical analysis and is not an easy job. Hence in many cases old historical events may simply be left out as not relevant to current. For example, we can simply not that guys saying they are Islamic, then shouting "Allah Akbar" as they explode themselves and everyone around them, are Islamic terrorists and in the absence of any note or definitive message as to the specific reasons for their actions, we can state they are doing it as an act of Islamic Jihad related to the stated intentions of Islam to take over the world. Pretty simple. I think it's fair what I said. If they left a note as to some political or war issue or retaliation for xyz, then that's what we accept as cause. If not, it is as I said. Spenduluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus? Funny how you continue being active on the thread but stopped answering my argument? What does it mean? That maybe I was not so wrong talking about THE MASSIVE RESPONSIBILITY of Western countries? oooooooooh no. That can't be it. Must be Islam only. Yeah! Let's all burn and kill all Muslims! Islam is responsible for everything definitely!!! |
|
|
|
Well the woman is beautiful indeed...
She's also the personification of consumerism, decay, growing importance of sex and objectification of women.
Exactly like Trump. And whole USA.
They're the heads of state the people deserve. But not the ones they need.
Better than Hillary, the personification of the corrupt self serving elite who appear to be above the law. That's not an argument man. I mean I guess you're not WRONG, but that's not argument. Indeed between Hitlery and Dump I guess Dump was better. But that's a bit like you asking "do you want me to cut the left or right hand?" I'll go for the left because I'm right-handed. But it doesn't mean I'll like to see my left hand disappearing ^^ |
|
|
|
Watching Stamp to see if we have really turned.
The book is pretty thin - 1000 BTC either bought or sold will make a huge price difference, so Stamp (which looks a leader right now) is very vulnerable to whale whims...
Tread carefully. I am looking for a dip to blow the last of my fiat, I put half of what I sold at the high 900s back in at 798 yesterday and then it went below. Thankfully I am ok now - but I haven't got a clue if I will get one more dip or not for the other half. Let's see.
EDIT: Wishing everyone a filthy French Weekend of screen action.
A filthy French Weekend? You mean you wish us to all raise the white flag together  Doesn't make much sense man |
|
|
|
That's 100% a fallacy.
Well when you are dealing with probability you can assume that if the house wins 50% and you win 50% when rolls -> infinity. Then chances are the next 100 bets, there will be more winners than losers to even it out. Yes I understand that each roll is completely independent of the prior and the next 100 bets can also have 90% losers and 10% winners. That's how people go bankrupt when doing martingale. However if you assume it will eventually even out then you chances of betting 100 rolls and winning 51 times or more is higher than if you made 100 bets prior and won 90% of them and lost only 10%.Nope, that's a completely false reasoning ^^ Let's say you bet on 50% and you lose 100 bets straight. Then in the next roll, you'll have exactly 50% chance of winning. And that for every rolls ever. Doesn't matter what you rolled. I understand what you mean, you mean you should win more because it has to even out eventually, but in reality that's not the case. It's just an impression your brain gots that's all |
|
|
|
|
Well the woman is beautiful indeed...
She's also the personification of consumerism, decay, growing importance of sex and objectification of women.
Exactly like Trump. And whole USA.
They're the heads of state the people deserve. But not the ones they need.
|
|
|
|
Wahou, those threads are much more interesting and healthier without imanotback posts I suggest anyone with a brain to also click on the little ignore button under his name. I'm ready to bet my hand that he hadn't answer to the simple fact that his "sources" are blog articles without anything to back them. If you actually believe he's right please PM me so I can add you to my ignore list. Because I can debate all day long with someone actually answering with facts or at least ideas. I can't and don't want bother to debate with someone answering only insults and other blog articles while ignoring your legit sources. |
|
|
|
Wait for few more days or about 1 week than price may get stabalized at some point however i don't think price will go deeper than $750 so if you can wait, wait for some days but if you want to buy than you can buy at current price.
$750 isn't a bottom at all (at least, not yet). We may very well face another round of panic dumps in the coming 24 hours, where we may even end up testing the $700 level. Best thing is to buy with 25% of the money you have for investment purposes at current prices, and save the rest for when the price happens to go down further. If the price goes up from these levels, then you benefit as you have bought yourself some coins already. If the price happens to tank further, then you can benefit in the way that you can buy at even lower prices. It's a win win if you play it right. Agreed overall. Furthermore, if you zoom out enough the price charts you will see a clear pattern! The numerous crashes follow huge pumps but evertime it happens we never reach last ATH. It means the price will continue to decrease very slowly until the next pump and crash! So wait a month or two before buying ^^ |
|
|
|
And of course USA patronage of Alquaida is in no way linked to the destabilisation of the whole Middle East or the rise of Islamic extremism! Must be because they're just barbarians! XD I just love how you chose to forget major facts. Terrorism is the results of our agressions. It doesn't mean we can't continue attacking them and invading them of course. War is.part of human history. If you want to make it fair enough. But don't act like you didn't attack first. US marines are terrorists. Don't forget that. But don't worry, so are French pilots |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
