I totally agree. Gun Control is the need of the hour. How many more innocent lives are we willing to sacrifice? Young kids are getting killed every now and than bez of the misuse of protection law. Its a time to have a strict and strong law to control this menace.
Yes, that's totally brilliant. You need a law to tell criminals to not be criminals so that criminals will not be criminals. At the very least you could have a law that criminals must wait 5 minutes after breaking into a house before they start robbing it. And they must wait 10 minutes after seizing a woman before raping her. This would give the cops time to arrive and arrest the criminals. Criminals will always have guns, regardless of the law. The innocent lives taken are taken by crime. We are heading towards a totalitarian state and taking away gun rights will get us into deep shit. Wait, so you mean it won't work just to tell the criminals to not be bad? (sarcasm) One woman obeyed a bad law, to not carry, and that got her family killed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9FzMnwrPEkGuns are like fire extinguishers. Sure you hope there won't be a fire. But you definitely want a couple fire extinguishers to put fires out. Nobody depends on waiting until the fire engines arrive. |
|
|
|
There's real drama here. The thought police is alive and kicking everywhere. I'm not American, but it's the same thing in Europe. Some jewish jokes which everybody thought funny a generation ago make people uncomfortable now. It's shocking to read in some magazines that we shall not condemn muslims because they are the first victims of terrorists. And you're a fascist moron if you don't like gays.
Free speech is a lost cause in Europe, I hope it will last in America, but I'm not sure it will despite the constitution.
Wait, so we shouldn't condemn mulsims because they are the first victims of terrorists? So should we condemn them because they are fascist morons who don't like gays? Or is the lesson here is that there is a "They" who is not "Us" who does the condemning, and who makes the decisions about what to permit and what to not permit? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI8AMRbqY6w |
|
|
|
I totally agree. Gun Control is the need of the hour. How many more innocent lives are we willing to sacrifice? Young kids are getting killed every now and than bez of the misuse of protection law. Its a time to have a strict and strong law to control this menace.
Yes, that's totally brilliant. You need a law to tell criminals to not be criminals so that criminals will not be criminals. At the very least you could have a law that criminals must wait 5 minutes after breaking into a house before they start robbing it. And they must wait 10 minutes after seizing a woman before raping her. This would give the cops time to arrive and arrest the criminals. |
|
|
|
...
P.S. The Bible origin is dating back for 13.000 bc, Abraham was the father of Ismail and Ismail was announced Mohamed!!!
How about you let us in on what you are smoking? It must be some really good shit. |
|
|
|
Oh lord. No way, dude. You are a straight up racist.  Oh, interesting. Now we all know. Muslim is a "race." |
|
|
|
Great vid! Thanks for the link. IMHO, even though it is quite important for a gun owner to know how to physically operate a gun, it is even more important to know what follows. This guy did a great no-nonsense job on that topic. Considering all of the idiocy that people are exposed to in the media I am actually quite surprised at the relatively low levels of irresponsible gun ownership among law abiding citizens. In fact even the criminal class seems surprisingly 'responsible' in their use of guns. That I ascribe to the sharp knives of the justice system when guns are involved in a crime, and this was exactly the goal of the current regime when it was formulated as policy. As far as I'm concerned, gun ownership here in the U.S. is really working remarkably well thanks to common sense and scientifically sound policy developed over the last 3 or 4 decades.
--- At this point, I am fairly confident to say that the anti-gun people with any sort of power (and I specifically exclude the propagandized ankle-biter zombie masses here) are upset about guns for the exact reason that those who formulated the 2nd amendment were envisioning. That is, as a tool of last resort against tyranny. A thinking person must ask themselves, 'what, in the future, could be so threatening that people would in any sort of numbers exercise the 'right to bear arms'?' I can think of a few possibilities, and in all of these cases I would prefer to have the 2nd amendment option than to not. That's just me, though, and I'm a relative oldster who missed some of the later curriculum taught in schools and don't watch much TV. Not only do I agree with the bolded above, but I imagine most of those in law enforcement would agree. Yes we have a modern problem, that mostly did not exist in the past, with the five minutes of fame atrocity killers, but they are a needle in the haystack of gun owners. Nothing, and in particular no system designed of rules, regulation and law, is perfect, and that includes firearms law and regulation. You do indeed wonder, as the Left incessantly hammers the gun control issue, whether the real goal is indeed something else entirely. Whether the goal may just be to eliminate the "tool of last resort against tyranny," even if those on the Left who do this may not even know what they do or why. |
|
|
|
The preception of Islam now is worst, because of some groups, the rebal groups who affliate theirselves with Islam, and killed the inncocent people. This is a big issue thats why people do not likes Islam. However Islam strongly conndems these types of attacks, even Islam said that assasination of one person is equals to killing of mankind.
The concept of JIHAD (Fight) in Islam is that....
How about we don't want to hear about you, and about Islam, and about Jihad. Period. Just stay in your own country and hate us, and the West. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtPeD-1lu0c |
|
|
|
What about cyborg women?
Would they be retard cyborg women? |
|
|
|
Guess who will be elected next year? Bernie sanders. Between the potheads and the democrats, he will win!
But why? Conservatives are not opposed to pot or potheads. It's pretty much agreed on that this is a states thing. There are exceptions, sure, like Chris Christi. |
|
|
|
Paul Craig Roberts has some criticism of Trump, but not the usual kind you hear repeated ad nauseum on MSM. The article has a bit on Stephanopoulos as well: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/12/21/donald-trump-an-evaluation-paul-craig-roberts/...
According to Stephanopoulos, “Putin has murdered journalists,” and Trump should be ashamed of praising a murderer of journalists. Trump asked Stephanopoulos for evidence, and Stephanopoulos didn’t have any. In other words, Stephanopoulos confirmed Trump’s statement that American politicians just make things up and rely on the presstitutes to support invented “facts” as if they are true. Trump made reference to Washington’s many murders.
Stephanopoulos wanted to know what journalists Washington had murdered. Trump responded with Washington’s murders and dislocation of millions of peoples who are now overrunning Europe as refugees from Washington’s wars. But Trumps advisors were not sufficiently competent to have armed him with the story of Washington’s murder of Al Jazerra’s reporters.
...
Unfortunately for Putin and for Trump, if news reports can be believed, Trump recently said that
he would use nuclear weapons against ISIS. This is a disqulifying statement. There is no reason to need nukes to defeat a force as small as ISIS. More importantly, as the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons against the population of another country, for the US to do so again would confirm for the Russian and Chinese governments that the US government is insane, untrustworthy, and in need of extermination before Russia and China are attacked. You cannot use nuclear weapons without consequence.
As I have said in a number of interviews, Trump’s problem is that he has no movement behind him, no advisors that he can trust, and he does not understand the issues. Trump has learned
that forceful statements are appreciated by voters. Therefore, he doesn’t differentiate intelligent forceful statements from insane statements. As long as his statements are forceful, Trump thinks that they work.
Recently I watched a video of a woman described as a “Trump advisor” who repeaded neocon nazi William Kristol’s statement: “What’s the use of nuclear weapons if you can’t use them?”
How did a William Kristol neocon nazi get on Trump’s staff? What more proof do we need that even if Trump is elected, the establishment will prevail despite Trump.
Trump cannot be a dissident politician without a dissident staff. He doesn’t know the people who would comprise a dissident staff. Trump knows how to make deals, and the Establishment will staff up a Trump presidency with deals. The minute Trump takes office, he would be already captured.
And a PS: Dear Mr. Roberts, I want to comment your article \”Donald Trump: An Evaluation — Paul Craig Roberts\” in which you provided an example when Washington killed journalists – US warplane bombed Al Jazeera’s headquarters in Baghdad during US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. I want to provide another example – during Washington led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 NATO warplanes bombed headquarters of the Radio Television of Serbia killing 16 people and wounding another 16. I also want to thank you for giving us excellent insight into complex economic and political issues revealing true nature of the evil imperialists in Washington. bestregards from Croatia/Igor ..... Well, since William Kristol is no "neocom nazi," how much more of this crap should anyone read? |
|
|
|
trump. better foreign policy than all the others, wont support islamic terrorists and start ww3 with russia, will preserve the usa's identity as a european majority country, will bring back industry and has explained how, is not a crazed libertarian who believes company shareholders create all the wealth and workers should be left to die when they get sick
Plus, we'd have the added benefit of listening to him tell people off for eight years. People who have got away with crap for far too long. |
|
|
|
WOAH, seriously?
Y'all don't know shit about sexuality do you? ROFL.
about half of females i've asked say they could be persuaded to at least kiss other girls and a lot will do stuff with each other just for fun or being dared because it comes naturally to them, most men on the other hand are sickened by the thought of intimacy with other men Not in the current age of pussification of men.... |
|
|
|
Soon all we say Allaho Akbar
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/12/25/allahu-akbar-means-almost-everything-except-establishment-media-says/http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cc1_1351188404…. As the rocket begins to ignite, and then launches, only to travel a couple of feet and explode in their own compound, the watching jihadis shout “Allahu akbar!” repeatedly, like characters in Orwell’s 1984 book who are restricted by Newspeak to think only thoughts that can be expressed by a few permitted words. First come the fervent “Please-make-it-work” “Allahu akbars,” and then the excited “Wow-its-working!” “Allahu akbars,” followed by, as the rocket fails, the resigned “Too bad” “Allahu akbars,” the apologetic “We’re-sorry-please-forgive-us” and the reassuring “Allah still is on our team” “Allahu akbars.” In contrast, a group of free Christian or post-Christian Westerners would have appealed to diligence, effort, luck and science — “Be careful!” “Go!” “Sh..,” and finally, “Back to the drawing board.” In Islam, the outcome actually determined by human choice, math, probability, luck and machinery are all under Allah’s control, and so the most appropriate thing to say no matter what happens is…Allahu akbar. In terms of its connotation, then, “Allahu akbar” can mean just about anything — except the one phrase it is most often rendered as in English, “God is great.” |
|
|
|
I think you are right, Jeb will never become US President! In fact, 2 US presidents from one family is really enough, so now is time for presidents from some other US families, not dynasties liker Bush or Clinton. Maybe, now is time for Trump dynasty  Ivanka? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump |
|
|
|
I think it's because people fail to realise what Islam really is... They assume it's something dangerous.
It's the people who believe Islam isn't dangerous who are doing the assuming. The only way to believe Islam isn't dangerous is to be utterly ignorant of Islam's origins, teachings and history. The simple problem with these preachy Muslims who try to split hairs on the Meaning of Jihad is that after they're done with that, they have to explain the stoning of women, the cutting off of arms and feet, the 1000 lashes to someone said to be an apostate, and many, many other brutal practices. Including death to the apostates. It just goes on and on. Even leaving the violent Jihad aside, there's more brutality and violence embedded in Islam than any other major religion. Far, far more. |
|
|
|
Care to explain?  Or is it that childhood molesting thing? it is only natural for soft skinned fragrant females to be attracted to one another, childhood molesting thing is to do with sodomites not this, female homosexuality is a harmless joke thing as long as it is the beautiful bisexual model types and not the short haired ugly dykes who want to get "married" and adopt kids Yeah. |
|
|
|
Once upon a time when I was hanging out in Bitcoin land in 2013, there was a bit of a survey done saying that most bitcoin users were men, the majority of them being 20-30 ish, and less interested in sex than the average male. Hilariously, as a woman and a sex worker, I found this kind of intriguing. Especially since one of the reasons the cryptoworld makes me roll my eyes is the awkward and shambling way guys are dealing with the lack of gender diversity (not to mention their slow realization of the gender spectrum).
So I'm curious if anything's changed. Are y'all still more interested in business than sex? And what have you learned about women in bitcoin? Or god forbid, queer folks in bitcoin?
Which university conducted the survey? Which science journal did the survey release in? Out of all the weird shit I have heard over here in the forums, this has to be one of the most absurd one. We are humans FFS!! mainstream media already alienates us as being hardcore geeks or hackers, now don't you try to add anymore to that disrepute by attributing a non human-like trait to all of us. Yes I am 20 something and I love sex. I can serve you up on a platter and EAT you. Figuratively speaking. and what is this obscene comment about queer folks? Are they not humans or is a sex worker (whore) somehow above a gay person? Seriously this was not meant to be offensive to you since you are so open about your profession. I don't care which university did it. LOL. I thought it was interesting. I'm basing my thoughts and feelings on my experiences in Bitcoin, which as a woman. That was sarcasm, not an obscene comment. LOL. I was in the forums earlier and someone was posing about homosexuality being due to child abuse so you should probably go talk to that guy if you don't want people thinking that bitcoin guys are non-human. Now that you say it, it is actually very possible you are the same guy with another shill account. There are idiots in this world and then there are IDIOTS in this world. That guy who was talking shit about gay people is just another new user / attention grabbing troll. LOL, seriously? So a woman comes on asking questions about men's shitty behaviour around sex and crappy forum politics and she *must* be another man wasting everyone's time? Nope, not too much has changed since 2013 has it boys? Not as far as a certain percent of the human race exhibiting insulting and negative behavior. Oh, and by the way we're all women posing as men. You couldn't tell, dear? |
|
|
|
Once upon a time when I was hanging out in Bitcoin land in 2013, there was a bit of a survey done saying that most bitcoin users were men, the majority of them being 20-30 ish, and less interested in sex than the average male. Hilariously, as a woman and a sex worker, I found this kind of intriguing. Especially since one of the reasons the cryptoworld makes me roll my eyes is the awkward and shambling way guys are dealing with the lack of gender diversity (not to mention their slow realization of the gender spectrum).
So I'm curious if anything's changed. Are y'all still more interested in business than sex? And what have you learned about women in bitcoin? Or god forbid, queer folks in bitcoin?
Indeed, a very strange post. So...let's summarize. A newbie poster knew nothing in 2013, has learned nothing in the meantime, has some insults to make, claims to be a sex worker, and never thinks of offering sex for coin. Sounds....too dull to merit a response.... |
|
|
|
 The idea itself is stupid. It will cost more to move potatoes to and from mars. The money can be used to feed people. Stupidity at its zenith. But would the money feed stupid people? Is money stupid? I mean, think about it. Rotten money is just rotten money. Rotten potatoes is VODKA. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
