Yeah yeah, it wasn't the banks that let these criminals in, I'm all for refugees being helped, however letting pretty much anybody run over the borders? You have to be absolutely stupid to let that happen if you're running a country. You can't argue this from a humanitarian angle when a chunk of these guys are going around and assaulting women and children, not unless you're a dishonest and heartless prick. I find the way the left in particular likes to paint anybody who talks about this problem as being racist particularly disgusting because it just shows you they're trying to shut down the debate and aren't interested in looking at the problem.
Nothing to see which racism, all to see with intelligence and pragmatism. You got two choices, you welcome them and try to integrate them, or you try to close your borders and forbid them to come. I'll give you a hint, only in France we've got 3 000km of borders. What do you want to do? Put soldiers everywhere to watch the borders? |
|
|
|
Europe got to protect it self. It is far better to do that by harsh immigration laws than angry mobs do it by their own. I know that Denmark move could look bit too much but it in situation like this it is fair.
It's nothing like fair. It's horrible, stupid, misleading the population anger towards immigrants whereas the one and only enemy of people are the banks. But the fact is that I don't know if this law will have any use. Not sure most migrant still have more than 1500$ after their trip... |
|
|
|
Most of the atheists are men of reason, they have logical explanations on how things work. Religion gives you a way to identify unexplainable things or events or at least unexplainable for you or your family. It's like magic of old is science of today. Unexplainable things before are now being expounded by science so as unexplainable or intangible things are being covered by religion whilst atheist have their own reasoning behind everything.
THANK YOU! Science evolved and moves forward - religion barely tries to adapt. How about religious people mind their own business, and like the LGBT community do their thing behind closed doors, atheists also will do what they must - everybody's happy and doesn't step on each other's toes. Religious people always try to convert atheists when they are the ones that should take example from the atheists - live and let live, and do not force on anyone your beliefs. In time truth shall come forward. I'm sure there was a time when electricity was considered something from the devil, and now everyone watches TV and uses washing machines so please - go to church and leave us alone. Religion is like a dick. It's fine to have one, but don't show it publicly and don't shove it in our children throats  My desire exactly. Quit forcing kids in school, and adults in college, to learn the science theory religion as truth, just so they can get an education to get a job.  Ok problem is that I can't let you alone, I still have to check your stupid comments otherwise I feel sick thinking that you're allowed to talk. So science is another religion then? And if science is wrong how did we make computers? The internet? How the fuck are we communicating then? |
|
|
|
if it reaches $1000 i will dump 150btc, call it a day and do something else with my life. even if it reaches the sun later, no regrets. ive tried enough
Many people will dump around $1000. That is psychological resistance. See the dumps of 27/11 - 28/11 2013. It's rather logical. That's why I always put my orders a few dollars before the too round numbers xD |
|
|
|
I may not be an american but donald trump is racist
If he became a president peaceful Muslims will be targeted
And will be treated badly the same goes to other race.
Peaceful? are you kidding me? I don't see other religions Stoning people to death or perhaps throwing them off buildings because they have commited some stupid act. Or maybe you mean peaceful by a father slaughtering his daughter because she dates a man that is not a Muslim? Is it a peaceful religion if you Bury a woman to her chest in dirt and throw rocks at her her head until she is dead because she is "ACCUSED" of commiting a crime like adultery? Peaceful? HA! What is so peaceful about your religion when you actively commit crimes against people who just want to live their lives? You insane? Sure cause Christians have always been so peaceful, never killed anyone and never burned alive people. They're not currently killing Muslims in Soudan and they never hanged black people in the USA only a few decades ago. Try to take some recoil while looking at a situation. Islam isn't as old as Christianity. In their calendar it's year 1437. Wanna know what was happening in 1437 after Christ? We were burning people alive and explaining that science was nothing but witchcraft while Arabs were inventing everything in science and mathematics. Not saying that it's just normal to stone women to death, just saying that we did exactly the same when our religion wasn't mature enough. Give them some time to grow.Edit: and when the pope explains that condom are devil instruments and should not be used in the countries the most infected by sida, I don't feel like Christians are far more intelligent... So....we're up to over 27,000 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11. Yeah, that's a great idea. Give them some time to grow.... http://thereligionofpeace.com/Lol, cause you think we were any different? Want to remember the state of global peace in 1400's? xD Religions all follow the same pattern of dumbass finding, centuries after centuries, that religious persons are all more or less morons that shouldn't rule a country. Your link is interesting. Here is the opposite part of the propaganda : https://www.iraqbodycount.org/Always intelligent to think about both sides you know. They didn't ask you to bomb their country, rape their women and kill their children. Anyway it was not the subject. Again think about Christians violence in the 1400's and you'll see there is no big difference. But it's still a matter of choice, as you're implying we don't have to wait for the Islamic religion to grow more and more mature, if you think we can eradicate it. That means killing absolutely every Muslim existing in the world. You feel ready for that? Well if you think it's worth it that would be a solution. |
|
|
|
Next 7 Obama years: 8.126 trillion dollars
Compare what we've done in the last 15 years to what we did in the first 224 years. We've more than tripled in the last 15 years what it took 224 years to accumulate in debt.
Eeeeehhh that's nothing. After you learn about the 1.6 quadrillion $ derivative market, you will see that the national debts are like a joke compared to it. insert thank you gif. It's like nobody understands how insane it is to have a market exchanging 20 times the amount of goods that actually exist. It always creates a bubble, exactly what happened with the subprimes. The exchange market was 20 times the real one, banks where betting on bet of bet of bet of bets of subprimes. It doesn't work like this... |
|
|
|
Most of the atheists are men of reason, they have logical explanations on how things work. Religion gives you a way to identify unexplainable things or events or at least unexplainable for you or your family. It's like magic of old is science of today. Unexplainable things before are now being expounded by science so as unexplainable or intangible things are being covered by religion whilst atheist have their own reasoning behind everything.
THANK YOU! Science evolved and moves forward - religion barely tries to adapt. How about religious people mind their own business, and like the LGBT community do their thing behind closed doors, atheists also will do what they must - everybody's happy and doesn't step on each other's toes. Religious people always try to convert atheists when they are the ones that should take example from the atheists - live and let live, and do not force on anyone your beliefs. In time truth shall come forward. I'm sure there was a time when electricity was considered something from the devil, and now everyone watches TV and uses washing machines so please - go to church and leave us alone. Religion is like a dick. It's fine to have one, but don't show it publicly and don't shove it in our children throats |
|
|
|
It's like the beginning of a Western. No action for far too long. |
|
|
|
Who gives a fuck what the French think about our domestic laws? What are they going to do? Not call us for help again next time they get their asses kicked?
Dude if you don't want my opinion don't go on a thread named "your opinion on guns' control". For the "not call us for help" part, yeah thanks when you see how you screwed us after I wonder if nazis were not better... And I like it how WWII is the proof of French incapacity to protect themselves and American great heart but how Lafayette is forgotten. I'll take the time to read your links later. But as I said and as you ignored, I apologized for the misunderstanding of the stats you provided. I can't really give you more than an apology. But it doesn't demonstrate your point as I was talking about violent crimes. Of course you could argue that "making a population safe" aso includes minor crimes like thefts. But guns won't increase thief, that's rather obvious there is no corelation between the two. So I was talking about violent crimes rates and homicides. That's why I was talking about mass shootings. And if my opinion offenses you, again don't go on a thread made for that or ignore me. |
|
|
|
this should encourage more, the people to invest in bitcoin, and help growing an alternative way to the plague that was/still is our conventional money system
trusting fiat at present is more dangerous than investing in bitcoin, numerous case of money lost due to banks playing with people money
there was a case of a bank(here) suggesting to an old man to invest in a low risk investment that then is become a heavy risk one, and he lost 100k in euro, he commited suicide by hanging
Dude, people trusted banks when they explained that subprimes were good and that "variable interest rates" didn't really mean variable. You really think people will even think about another way than banks? |
|
|
|
Though it comes from another thread, I believe it's the proof that BADecker is either incredibly stupid, either a troll. I'd bet he's both though. So I put him on my ignore list and I invite you to do the same.
Awesome! That quote made my night. No, there'll be no ignore list for BADecker anytime soon. It's just too much fun. If I stop posting here, you'll know it got boring for me. Until then, Hahahaha! Sigh. Good point is that I had no trouble to reach my daily limit on the sig campaign while making excellent quality posts xD But it seems to be totally useless and I'm a bit tired of this unilateral debate! Good luck though ^^ |
|
|
|
Military training is that at close quarters, an edged weapon is equal to a gun, reason is reaction times. Reminds me of the three Afgan soldiers, each with AK47, who holed up in a cave for the night, even though it smelled a bit funny. Then the bear came in.
Next. Three dead soldiers.
Yeah but it requires incredible training, so it doesn't concern the vast majority of people ^^ Now you are trying to tell us that people don't get killed by bears, because most bears haven't had enough training? It's more like bears don't usually have enough incentive. If bears aren't baby bears, they instinctively have all the training that they need. Dude, your stupidity reaches the sky well done. I was talking about the fact that "at close quarters, an edged weapon is equal to a gun". Not about the bear... My stupidity hasn't matched yours by a long shot (pun intended). Haven't you ever heard of close-range guns? Your point being? Thank you for making my point. I suspect you wanted to explain that guns can supplant cold weapons, but as you seem too lazy to read above, that was not my claim to say that guns are weaker on close ranged combat... So you're just arguing for my point of view... Which was clearly not your intent. How do you know that the weapons the bear used were "cold weapons?" After all, if the AK-47s were used, they wouldn't have been cold. What does your claim or non-claim have to do even with the idea that we are arguing? Though it comes from another thread, I believe it's the proof that BADecker is either incredibly stupid, either a troll. I'd bet he's both though. So I put him on my ignore list and I invite you to do the same. |
|
|
|
Military training is that at close quarters, an edged weapon is equal to a gun, reason is reaction times. Reminds me of the three Afgan soldiers, each with AK47, who holed up in a cave for the night, even though it smelled a bit funny. Then the bear came in.
Next. Three dead soldiers.
Yeah but it requires incredible training, so it doesn't concern the vast majority of people ^^ Now you are trying to tell us that people don't get killed by bears, because most bears haven't had enough training? It's more like bears don't usually have enough incentive. If bears aren't baby bears, they instinctively have all the training that they need. Dude, your stupidity reaches the sky well done. I was talking about the fact that "at close quarters, an edged weapon is equal to a gun". Not about the bear... My stupidity hasn't matched yours by a long shot (pun intended). Haven't you ever heard of close-range guns? Your point being? Thank you for making my point. I suspect you wanted to explain that guns can supplant cold weapons, but as you seem too lazy to read above, that was not my claim to say that guns are weaker on close ranged combat... So you're just arguing for my point of view... Which was clearly not your intent. How do you know that the weapons the bear used were "cold weapons?" After all, if the AK-47s were used, they wouldn't have been cold. What does your claim or non-claim have to do even with the idea that we are arguing? Ok I'm just going to ignore you. You don't even deserve my attention. |
|
|
|
this is an interesting argument, some times avoided, some country allow to easy to access to weapons, there should be more restriction, in USA it is so easy that everyone can buy one of those gun, they often call it a far west for good reason, i think that there can't be good gun control, because this things are born to kill and when you face the death you will do everything to survive, and your control will not be 100%, your focus is only on your survival nothing else, so it is easy to hurt someone that ahs nothing to do with your dispute, especially if it happen in pubblic, like in the usa or russia
Obviously you know nothing of gun purchase procedures in the USA. Just saying. Well maybe it's not true and we have a wrong vision of it. When you watch Bowling for Columbine it's really amazing to see that opening a bank account can lead to receiving a gun xD And the fact that ammunitions are sold at the hairdresser.... It's incredible! Okay, how about I do nothing but quote lies about France? Then we'd be even. First: I started by "maybe it's not true" just to explain you why we have this impression and where does it come from. Second: Bowling for Columbine is a documentary. It may lie about some facts, that's possible. But you actually see Michael Moore buying bullets at the hairdresser and getting a gun for opening a bank account, as a gift. I don't doubt that it's a real tiny minority, but the fact that it exists is already incredible. |
|
|
|
The Pic speaks for it self  This is a Bitcoin thread in the Bitcoin section, so you shouldn't be promoting altcoins here. Neverheless ethereum had only gone up by 10.57%. Why did you omit dogecoin which has surpassed it by going up by 11.11%? You showed dash at 5th place which has crashed, but omitted dogecoin at 6th place. Is that because a joke like dogecoin going up faster than ethereum doesn't make ethereum look good?  Dogecoin has been pumped numerous times, and ethereum's being pumped like any other altcoin. Or the fact that growth of a market less than 200 millions is not significant ^^ |
|
|
|
We are arguing about script now? Upper vs lower case? What's the difference? To me, your god *is* a lower case god.
While we're on the subject, how am I "treacherous"? Treachery implies a betrayal of trust, trust which you have never placed in me. Unless your definition of treachery is also different from everyone else's?
Thank you for admitting your treachery. However, if you are simply ignorant, I apologize. The term "lowercase" is in the definition. Since you try to hide the significance of this, rather than admitting to having missed it, your treachery becomes all the more evident. Treachery. You keep using that word. I don't it means what you think it means. You have said, above, that "treachery" implies a betrayal of trust. When you look at the profile of anyone in this forum, you can find, near the bottom of the first page of their profile, their trust rating. The whole operation of living life with other people has to do with a level of trust. Why do you keep on attempting to move into more treachery? Some of the greatest treachery is found among government people. Are you in, or do you work for, government? Why do you keep avoiding the fact that your definition of religion is wrong and that atheism is not a religion according to the definition of everyone else? |
|
|
|
I don't hate religion as much as I hate the extremists in said religion... But I'll be honest, yeah, I'm not that fond of religion. It doesn't mean I don't like the more sane people following it, my whole family is Christian, afterall, but religion has caused so much hate and fear in this world already it'd be better without it.
Why be hateful at all. You can find hateful people in religion. But you can find loving people in religion, as well. It's the same with the religion of atheism. You keep saying that atheism is a religion, and yet everyone I've asked IRL thinks atheism is *not* a religion. I'm pretty sure your definition of religion is very much a minority opinion, possibly even a minority of one in one billion. Or even of one in the world. Religion is an English word, so I'm estimating one billion total English speakers (native plus ESL). One in a billion is effectively one in the world. The very base of a religion is to believe in one or more gods. The very point of atheism is to refuse the existence of any god...
Seems rather obvious who's right here.
True, but BADecker has a developed an entire system of illogic designed to bamboozle in order to prove that it is so. So, very time he baits someone by saying "btdubs, atheism ⊂ religion", I post here to encourage him to produce new arguments. Maybe he'll eventually realise his "Atheism is a religion, and if it isn't it is anyway" aren't logical arguments, just self-contained contradictions. Since you don't want to believe what the dictionary says, nobody knows what you are saying with the English words you use. You might be talking about something that is extremely different than you mean by the words you use. You never used the dictionary definition, clearly. "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" Here is the Oxford definition. Sounds like religion needs a God... OH MY GOD WHO WOULD HAVE BELIEVED THAT?  RELIGION IS LINKED TO GOD? Oo Idiot. And you are deceitful, because that isn't all that there is to the definition in the Oxford dictionary. If it were, you would have supplied the link. Since you didn't supply the link, you show that you are hiding the rest of it as best you can. You deceiver. Dude I didn't provide the link because even the most stupid dumbass is able to type "oxford dictionnary" on google... Here is the link as you're too lazy: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religionThe question doesn't have anything to do with looking up the Oxford dictionary. The question has to do with where you, a deceitful person, got the info you supplied. I mean, we don't know that it was really the Oxford dictionary. Even if it is exactly the same as what the Oxford dictionary says, we still don't know where you got it, because there might be other sites that use the same wording as the Oxford dictionary. In other words, we would like to know what your level of deceit is, rather than only your stupidity. Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn.... That is such a nonsense xD Ok I'll be clear. I got the definition on Oxford dictionary. What could it change that I had it here on there as long as it's the official definition? And how the fact that I provide the ling to the oxford dictionary website would change anything? I could have taken the link after having found the definition elsewhere... And it doesn't change the fact that this definition proves you wrong. That you're a dumbass trying to fool people with your fucking smile face that I would like top slap on the ground right now. |
|
|
|
Military training is that at close quarters, an edged weapon is equal to a gun, reason is reaction times. Reminds me of the three Afgan soldiers, each with AK47, who holed up in a cave for the night, even though it smelled a bit funny. Then the bear came in.
Next. Three dead soldiers.
Yeah but it requires incredible training, so it doesn't concern the vast majority of people ^^ Now you are trying to tell us that people don't get killed by bears, because most bears haven't had enough training? It's more like bears don't usually have enough incentive. If bears aren't baby bears, they instinctively have all the training that they need. Dude, your stupidity reaches the sky well done. I was talking about the fact that "at close quarters, an edged weapon is equal to a gun". Not about the bear... My stupidity hasn't matched yours by a long shot (pun intended). Haven't you ever heard of close-range guns? Your point being? Thank you for making my point. I suspect you wanted to explain that guns can supplant cold weapons, but as you seem too lazy to read above, that was not my claim to say that guns are weaker on close ranged combat... So you're just arguing for my point of view... Which was clearly not your intent. |
|
|
|
I don't hate religion as much as I hate the extremists in said religion... But I'll be honest, yeah, I'm not that fond of religion. It doesn't mean I don't like the more sane people following it, my whole family is Christian, afterall, but religion has caused so much hate and fear in this world already it'd be better without it.
Why be hateful at all. You can find hateful people in religion. But you can find loving people in religion, as well. It's the same with the religion of atheism. You keep saying that atheism is a religion, and yet everyone I've asked IRL thinks atheism is *not* a religion. I'm pretty sure your definition of religion is very much a minority opinion, possibly even a minority of one in one billion. Or even of one in the world. Religion is an English word, so I'm estimating one billion total English speakers (native plus ESL). One in a billion is effectively one in the world. The very base of a religion is to believe in one or more gods. The very point of atheism is to refuse the existence of any god...
Seems rather obvious who's right here.
True, but BADecker has a developed an entire system of illogic designed to bamboozle in order to prove that it is so. So, very time he baits someone by saying "btdubs, atheism ⊂ religion", I post here to encourage him to produce new arguments. Maybe he'll eventually realise his "Atheism is a religion, and if it isn't it is anyway" aren't logical arguments, just self-contained contradictions. Since you don't want to believe what the dictionary says, nobody knows what you are saying with the English words you use. You might be talking about something that is extremely different than you mean by the words you use. You never used the dictionary definition, clearly. "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" Here is the Oxford definition. Sounds like religion needs a God... OH MY GOD WHO WOULD HAVE BELIEVED THAT? RELIGION IS LINKED TO GOD? Oo Idiot. And you are deceitful, because that isn't all that there is to the definition in the Oxford dictionary. If it were, you would have supplied the link. Since you didn't supply the link, you show that you are hiding the rest of it as best you can. You deceiver. Dude I didn't provide the link because even the most stupid dumbass is able to type "oxford dictionnary" on google... Here is the link as you're too lazy: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion |
|
|
|
I don't hate religion as much as I hate the extremists in said religion... But I'll be honest, yeah, I'm not that fond of religion. It doesn't mean I don't like the more sane people following it, my whole family is Christian, afterall, but religion has caused so much hate and fear in this world already it'd be better without it.
Why be hateful at all. You can find hateful people in religion. But you can find loving people in religion, as well. It's the same with the religion of atheism. You keep saying that atheism is a religion, and yet everyone I've asked IRL thinks atheism is *not* a religion. I'm pretty sure your definition of religion is very much a minority opinion, possibly even a minority of one in one billion. Or even of one in the world. Religion is an English word, so I'm estimating one billion total English speakers (native plus ESL). One in a billion is effectively one in the world. The very base of a religion is to believe in one or more gods. The very point of atheism is to refuse the existence of any god...
Seems rather obvious who's right here.
True, but BADecker has a developed an entire system of illogic designed to bamboozle in order to prove that it is so. So, very time he baits someone by saying "btdubs, atheism ⊂ religion", I post here to encourage him to produce new arguments. Maybe he'll eventually realise his "Atheism is a religion, and if it isn't it is anyway" aren't logical arguments, just self-contained contradictions. Since you don't want to believe what the dictionary says, nobody knows what you are saying with the English words you use. You might be talking about something that is extremely different than you mean by the words you use. You never used the dictionary definition, clearly. "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" Here is the Oxford definition. Sounds like religion needs a God... OH MY GOD WHO WOULD HAVE BELIEVED THAT? RELIGION IS LINKED TO GOD? Oo Idiot. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
