North Korea Lands First Ever Man On Saturn, Confirms Central News AgencyIt’s been confirmed that North Korea has become the first country to land a man on Saturn. Hung Il Gong made landfall on Saturn at approximately 3 a.m. this morning. He was in a specially designed, one man spacecraft that the North Korean’s have had under wraps for the last decade. Upon landfall, Hung performed tests and navigation exercises from within his craft. Three hours later at 6:03 a.m., Hung deemed it safe to step outside and take a space walk. Hung proceeded to proudly mount the North Korean flag on the planet while giving a muddled short speech praising Kim Jong-un for providing the opportunity to represent his country in such epic fashion. A live television broadcast aired play by play audio of the events as they unfolded. A State news anchor said, “We are proud to announce our Saturn Space Mission a success! No one has ever done what North Korea has just done. Our hero, Hung Il Gong, is now mounting the North Korean flag on Saturn as I speak.” A major welcoming home party is scheduled for 10 p.m. tonight when Hung is scheduled to fly his spaceship back home. He will meet with Kim Jong-un upon immediate return, reportedly bringing back dirt and rock samples as souvenirs for the supreme leader. This recent accomplishment has launched North Korea to the top of the global space rankings, while North Korean officials are calling the epic space mission “the absolute greatest human achievement of all time.” http://www.nymeta.co/north-korea-saturn/ Wow, the USA and Russia are really falling behind in the space race. Couple of minor, insignificant glitches in the story. Such as the fact that Saturn is a gas giant style of planet and has no "surface" to land on. |
|
|
|
Some measures for gun control are being put in place.... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/nyregion/connecticut-to-ban-gun-sales-to-those-on-federal-terrorism-lists.html?_r=0With the mass shooting in California last week focusing attention on terrorism and guns, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut announced on Thursday that he intended to sign an executive order barring people on federal terrorism watch lists from buying firearms in the state.
“Like all Americans, I have been horrified by the recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris,” Mr. Malloy, a Democrat, told reporters. “This should be a wake-up call to all of us. This is a moment to seize in America, and today I’m here to say that we in Connecticut are seizing it.FYI, the "terrorism watch list" is a list of names, not identities. So this moronic measure would ban, as an example, all "John Smith" persons, if just one of thousands were on the list. If the banned name lacked a middle name, you can see what would occur. As the "terrorism watch list" does not name individuals, a ban based on it would clearly be unconstitutional. Then again, I am certain there is a Mohammed on that list... We can expect a lot of pushback on this. The terrorists of this world will find easier (illegal) ways to buy guns. These measures are not going to stop them. FYI, the current NICS background check seems to work okay. Here is a list of the categories of people who are denied on this standard procedure. One truly glaring thing that's obvious in reading this is that MOST of the categories of things liberals say "we ought to do" are already being done...
The federally prohibiting criteria are as follows:
A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. |
|
|
|
...
This racist should be banned from running in presidential election because a person with so much of hatred in heart can never do anything good to anyone he is new age hitler
You don't know what racism is. I'm from American. We have banned groups of people from entering numerous times. The last in 1980 by a liberal named Jimmy Carter. Turn off your TV. It's showing! As said once by a Supreme Court justice, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." If there is factually a high risk of bad outcomes from Muslims entering the country, they certainly can be banned - by religion. It's no different than quarantining incoming people at Ellis Island and checking them for contagious diseases before letting them loose on the streets. |
|
|
|
Spendulus, on geo-specific behavior, Islam demands some compensations to be paid in camels... Would be hard to get them from the zoo around here!  Hey, you don't get to pick and choose. If it says camels, and you are a True Muslim, you must pay in camels. |
|
|
|
Some measures for gun control are being put in place.... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/nyregion/connecticut-to-ban-gun-sales-to-those-on-federal-terrorism-lists.html?_r=0With the mass shooting in California last week focusing attention on terrorism and guns, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut announced on Thursday that he intended to sign an executive order barring people on federal terrorism watch lists from buying firearms in the state.
“Like all Americans, I have been horrified by the recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris,” Mr. Malloy, a Democrat, told reporters. “This should be a wake-up call to all of us. This is a moment to seize in America, and today I’m here to say that we in Connecticut are seizing it.FYI, the "terrorism watch list" is a list of names, not identities. So this moronic measure would ban, as an example, all "John Smith" persons, if just one of thousands were on the list. If the banned name lacked a middle name, you can see what would occur. As the "terrorism watch list" does not name individuals, a ban based on it would clearly be unconstitutional. Then again, I am certain there is a Mohammed on that list... |
|
|
|
......Islam has about 550 years before they stop believing it ok to kill for the faith. Given modern communication, I suspect it won't take that long.
Another possibility is that Islam does not adapt to changing times, and dies out. 99% of all religions that have ever sprung to life have died. This is particularly noted around religions which have geographical locations of primary importance. Islam does this, Christianity does not. |
|
|
|
Her policy for Muslims is also very good and trustworthy, specially after the Trumps statement about Muslims.
Hillary Clinton is aiming to become the President of the United States of America. She is not campaigning to become the president of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. So her views on Muslims are not important at all. What is important is her foreign policy, and the stand on domestic issues. And in my opinion, both are disastrous. Oh, her views on Muslims are probably important for the 8% of Democratic voters who are Muslim. And for the percentage of the Democratic party who remain suckered into the Muslims-are-Victims hype. I mean, that's all they have for a platform. Old white faces repeating crap like.... Blacks-are-Victims. Muslims-are-Victims. Women-are-Victims. Girls-are-Rape-Victims. Transgendered-whackos-are-Victims... |
|
|
|
It's like saying every German is a Nazi. Or every American is Fat and Stupid.
Or all Chinese can Kung-Fu.
False. Muslim is not a race. But do you want realy somebody with so much HATE in the heart to be the president?
someone who say that every muslim is a terrorist, even if it's only 1%?
Do you want war monger Hillary instead? Good question, but for whom does she mong war? Not for our troopers at Bengazi.... |
|
|
|
YES she is trustworthy; she is the best qualified candidate, Former First Lady, former US Senator from New York, former Secretary of State. ......Her policy for Muslims is also very good and trustworthy, specially after the Trumps statement about Muslims.
I forget, what is the name of Hillary's whore bitch of a Lesbian Iranian? Oh yea. Huma Abedin. Wait, so she was humping them like rabbits? There was bunches of them? http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/exclusive-hillary-clinton-lesbian-lovers-named-secret-emails |
|
|
|
You want to know why Islam is what it is? Because it manged to stay Medieval for last 1000 year. That is why mindset of Muslim people is so different from rest of the world - either western of eastern society.
While world evolved Islam stayed the same with its barbaric methods, outdated way of treating women and hateful ideology towards everyone who is not Muslim.
Well, Muslims do argue that Islam is perfect. Are you saying it is perfectly Medieval? Because staying Medieval for 1000 years certainly is a record of sorts... |
|
|
|
This racist should be banned from running in presidential election because a person with so much of hatred in heart can never do anything good to anyone he is new age hitler
Who would make the decision to ban him? I think you mean NOT THE VOTERS but somebody WHO KNOWS BEST FOR US. Does that sum it up? Lol... |
|
|
|
Is this some sort of liberals whining topic? Where my popcorns?
Yes. We invite all whiners to whine while we win. |
|
|
|
Do you really think you need to make excuses for yourself to me?  From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t: atheist
[ey-thee-ist]
noun
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Everything you said following this was based upon either deliberately or accidentally ignoring that which has been highlighted. Here's one for you : A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue. In discussion of religion, the use of logical fallacies to promote one's position lends credence to the opposing side. An interesting question is whether any of the great religious figures produced arguments with logical errors embedded in them. |
|
|
|
It's the type of thing that an unthinking moron would agree with knowing that it would never be permitted to happen. I wonder how they'd feel if they actually saw him attempt to put it into effect. It would suddenly seem a lot less funny.
You mean except for all the times it has been permitted to happen in the past? Like when Jimmie Carter banned Iranians? Or with the internment of japanese in ww2, etc. But because it was done in the past isn't an excuse to do it now. It should never have happened. And don't know if the comparison with carter is good. Carter did it in a specific situation as sanctions against iran. And he had specific requirements to stop the sanctions. But trump wants to ban every muslim. Including americans abroad apparently. And he is very vague about how temporary the ban is. Or how it will be lifted. Don't see this coming true nowadays. Doesn't really sound like you have even a clue as to his specific proposals. "excuse to do it now?" So YOU have some kind of higher moral ground, eh? lol.... |
|
|
|
It's the type of thing that an unthinking moron would agree with knowing that it would never be permitted to happen. I wonder how they'd feel if they actually saw him attempt to put it into effect. It would suddenly seem a lot less funny.
You mean except for all the times it has been permitted to happen in the past? Like when Jimmie Carter banned Iranians? |
|
|
|
Just because the energy source of this device is not obvious does not mean it is necessarily a scam.
It might be that the device taps some previously unknown source or a source that has been thought to be unusable like dark energy or the quantum vacuum.
Science is always progressing.
this is, I assure you, not an example of science progressing. Scams are always progressing... |
|
|
|
In my area you cannot shoot anyone just because they've trespassed onto your property. The trespasser must be posing a threat. This seems logical and fair to me and I have no objections. If you do shoot someone, you go to court to prove your case so they better not have an entrance wound in their back. I personally think that the 'stand your ground' idea is stupid and counter-productive and leads to more problems than it solves.
I'm not from america (if you are), the situation in my country is far different from yours. In the province that I mentioned, police are unreliable - you're mostly on your own, that's why most people confront things by themselves. I'm not from a sue-happy country as well, court is useless as it is corrupt as &^#@*, so If you do something bad... good luck. Some months ago, when there was a thievery marathon in my area which makes neighbors can't sleep well at night (because local police is useless as fck). I heard a gunshot in the middle of the night. Next morning, they said a known thief in my area has been shot dead. That's good, 1 less thief in the world, and neighbors felt relief. This is so sad to hear this. The thief was only doing his job. And it's a hard job, he has to work through the cold, dark night. He has to deal with mean and hostile victims. Just think of how much more dangerous his job is if people have guns. They shouldn't be allowed. <<satire>> |
|
|
|
Boxing icon Muhammad Ali has come out fighting against Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump and his controversial call for a ban on the entry of all Muslims into the US.
Trump's comments have been widely condemned in the states from across the political spectrum with President Barrack Obama calling for unity in the wake of the 2 December San Bernardino shootings which left 21 dead and were inspired by Islamic State terrorism.
Ali, who became an outspoken advocate of the civil rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s and converted to Islam in 1975, also used his statement to speak out against the Islamic State (Isis/Daesh) and to say Islam had nothing to do with the attacks in Paris on 13 November.
In the statement broadcast on US television, Ali, 73, said: "Speaking as someone who has never been accused of political correctness, I believe that our political leaders should use their position to bring understanding about the religion of Islam and clarify that these misguided murderers have perverted people's views on what Islam really is.
"I am a Muslim, and there is nothing Islamic about killing innocent people in Paris, San Bernardino, or anywhere else in the world.
"True Muslims know that the ruthless violence of so-called Islamic jihadists goes against the very tenets of our religion," he added.
Wait, so Ali gets into the news by insulting Trump, and claiming that Muslims were not behind all the terrorist violence? Wow.... |
|
|
|
Trump (again) does not understand what a President can and cannot do. He does not understand that the position he is running for is not "King". As soon as he does, he will quit.
Really? I could have swore Obama was playing king. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
