Jesus loved all his children, especially the ones that were rejected by mainstream society.d4rkph03n1x wrote:
Okay, first point is pretty hard hitting, but where are your opinions founded from? Watercooler chat? Homosexuality is frowned upon and I don't believe Jesus supported/would have supported homosexuality. I'm not against abortion, but i'm not the most devoted christian either. How is it a double standard? Abortion and the death penalty are not related in anyway or in any situation. I'm sorry, but most of your argument is flawed.sergeriver wrote:
These are a few things I find kinda hypocrite about some Christians, not all.
1-The Vatican speaks of the 7 new mortal sins, yet they don't mention child abuse. I guess being concerned about the environment is PC and gives the Catholic Church good PR. But priests molesting and/or abusing children is not a concern for them.
2-Many Catholic Christians constantly point their fingers at Islam and claim that moderate Muslims should speak out against the extremists. I wonder how many of them speak out against these priests. I guess it wouldn't look ok for their Church to admit such thing.
3-Almost every Christian out there is against homosexuality. Isn't this behaviour the opposite to the teachings of Jesus? If I'm not wrong Jesus advocated to be tolerant to others and yet most Christians are against gays having the same rights than us because "it's not natural".
4-Almost every Christian around the World is against abortion, that's a fact. In the US many Evangelical Conservatives support the death penalty and the war in Iraq. Isn't this a double standard?
Search
Search results: 255 found, showing up to 50
Thou shalt not be dishonest or engage in dishonest actions
Thou shalt honour the provider of thy nookie
Thou shall keep thine religeon to themselves
The rest will work itself out.
Thou shalt honour the provider of thy nookie
Thou shall keep thine religeon to themselves
The rest will work itself out.
That's why religeon is retarded. Because people beleive what suits them. Not what is morally right. See Pat Robertson for obscenely wealthy, and he thinks he is a prophet (more like profit).G3|Genius wrote:
I don't think wealth itself is sinful. I think that it can lead to selfishness, greed, folly, aggression, and other sinful behavior.
I think we are entitled to what we honestly earn. I think what the Church is saying is, those who "have" have a moral obligation to help those who "have not" rather than squirreling it away for selfish reasons.
It's in the Bible...I'll look it up and edit my post.
[edit]Luke 12:15-21 wrote:
15
Then he said to the crowd, "Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one's life does not consist of possessions."
16
Then he told them a parable. "There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest.
17
He asked himself, 'What shall I do, for I do not have space to store my harvest?'
18
And he said, 'This is what I shall do: I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones. There I shall store all my grain and other goods
19
and I shall say to myself, "Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!"
20
But God said to him, 'You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?'
21
Thus will it be for the one who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich in what matters to God."
True, but to make it sound as if its all Islam, and that our religeons didn't cause the same kinds of problems is very Naive. Terrorist's are fucked in the head, i agree, but 99.99999% of muslims are VERY honest hard working people that only want peace. Not all terrorist's are muslim by the way. They are just the latest flavour.Kmarion wrote:
We are talking continued about self destruction and lack of progress. Do you wanna go tit for tat in modern times? Killing each other is a daily event in the middle east. Once they stop picking ancient blood feuds over progress the sooner the bloodshed will stop.PluggedValve wrote:
All religeons are fucked. Not only Islam. Crusades much, abortion clinic killers, GW Bush???
Plus if someone confronts or stands up to the US they are going to use propoganda to sway public opinion into supporting them. So the best propoganda they use is "they all hate the american dream" (that hits a nerve with americans) and Americans froth at the mouth and support going to war. Most if not all of these nations that "hate america" dont hate american's, they hate the US "securing resources" in their land and getting jack squat out of the deal.
By the way, i hope you guys do rip up the NAFTA agreement, i dont really like the way my government promised 75% of our resources to be sold to the US gauranteed. You might not know this but we have the largest amount of Natural Gas and Fresh Water on the planet.
Dont burn down a bridge that you might need to cross.
All religeons are fucked. Not only Islam. Crusades much, abortion clinic killers, GW Bush???
Yes, i believe the middle is oregon grape. The berries are VERY bitter if you have tried em. I know the one on the right, but cant recall. Will see what i can find for ya.Kamikaze17 wrote:
this middle could be a form of holly or it can be oregon grape. are there any bigger versions of it around with any berries on it? and the one on the right im not sure since i have never seen it around where i live.
Aren't there alot of ex-soldiers NOT getting paid their pensions for various BS reasons??FEOS wrote:
Payroll and retirement benefits. The majority of our budget is manpower expenses.RAIMIUS wrote:
They spend a lot more than their published military budget...not that they come close to the US's spending. I doubt that their payroll is nearly as large as ours, which is where quite a bit of the US budget goes.
And the US (pardon me, BUSH) thinks Venezuala is a threat. LOLZ.sergeriver wrote:
Venezuela only 4bn mmmm?
The old saying "do as i say, not as i do"
To solve the problem with US Tax $$ going to Israel etc... dismantle the all powerful Lobby groups. AIPAC is the most powerful lobby group, and they lobby for all things benefitting Israel. It seems to be the case that if AIPAC does not approve of a candidate, that candidate does not get onto the ballot, let alone win it.
In other words it does not matter who you vote for in 08, they are going to owe a little some some to AIPAC for backing them or at least not calling them an anti-semite. So more tax $$$ to Israel, get used to it.
In other words it does not matter who you vote for in 08, they are going to owe a little some some to AIPAC for backing them or at least not calling them an anti-semite. So more tax $$$ to Israel, get used to it.
Much less i would guess. Good thread by the way IRONCHEFGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
ironchef, I wonder what you bitched about in this country before 2000.
Your an idiot if you think crack and weed are even remotely similar. Weed does not cause you to lose awareness or act violently at all. It gives an euphoric feeling making simple colours and feelings feel enhanced.FEOS wrote:
Rrrriiiggghhhtttt.PluggedValve wrote:
Why cant all drugs be treated the same?? Alchohol actually causes people to lose their awareness, coordination and thought process. It is the most dangerous of the 3 drugs mentioned.
Because none of those things happen to people smoking pot or crack (the other two mentioned).
Also, i did not make a mention of crack. I said cocain, which is not crack. Crack is a derivative of cocain and gives users a very different high. I can see why you would mix them up, so this is for your info. Crack Cocain is not cocain, it is made from cocain, just to clarify.
Have you smoked either weed or crack FEOS?? Obviously not with your statement above. But good on ya, i guess.
Your right Kmarion. There is a reason though. It goes hand in hand with the topic. There are like a million people in jail on drug charges that are non violent offenders. But yah legalizing weed would definetely help your crowded prison problem.Kmarion wrote:
lol@ all the people waiting to pounce on the legalize weed debate. See above.PluggedValve wrote:
Well that would make you pretty hippocritical, no??? Marijauna/ other drugs should be illegal. But alcholhol legal. Only punished based on the decisions made while drunk.Kmarion wrote:
Nope.. the same rules apply. If you make a bad decision under the influence you pay for it.
I agree with punishing the actions made while drunk, same goes for drugs. Dont ban alchohol or drugs, just put em in jail if they do real crimes. Like car-jackings or wife beating or drunk driving.
Why cant all drugs be treated the same?? Alchohol actually causes people to lose their awareness, coordination and thought process. It is the most dangerous of the 3 drugs mentioned.
nice. Thats good use of taxpayer dollars i reckon.FEOS wrote:
Irony ftw.topthrill05 wrote:
A common misconception is that NYC is NY, while I am sure you understand the difference you fail to see that NY is really one of the best states to live in, aside from taxes but our taxes are shown through are education system being one of the best.ShowMeTheMonkey wrote:
What is the state with the lowest? I see the 5.6% but no idea what state it is.
Also i thought New York would have a hell of a lot.
Although that can be a little scary too.
Well that would make you pretty hippocritical, no??? Marijauna/ other drugs should be illegal. But alcholhol legal. Only punished based on the decisions made while drunk.Kmarion wrote:
Nope.. the same rules apply. If you make a bad decision under the influence you pay for it.PureFodder wrote:
Ban alcohol?Kmarion wrote:
The problem is some drugs will encourage and empower people to do other criminal behavior. If this is the case they are a threat to society and should be removed.
Drugs are bad.. MmmKay.
I agree with punishing the actions made while drunk, same goes for drugs. Dont ban alchohol or drugs, just put em in jail if they do real crimes. Like car-jackings or wife beating or drunk driving.
Why cant all drugs be treated the same?? Alchohol actually causes people to lose their awareness, coordination and thought process. It is the most dangerous of the 3 drugs mentioned.
Yah!! Serious crime, like buying a dime bag, or having a fancy plant in your window, non violent shoplifters and all the real serious shit.HudsonFalcon wrote:
Welcome to the conversation. We're not talking about traffic violations or jay walking, we're talking about serious criminal offenses that warrant prison time.PureFodder wrote:
I'll give you everything I own and everything I'll ever earn if you can find one person on this website who hasn't done anything illegal in their life.HudsonFalcon wrote:
If you do something illegal you deserve to be in prison whether it's a violent or non-violent crime, it's just ashame we have so many people in this country that can't follow the rules.
I'm fine with any rule that protects a person's safety from others but me buying a little bag of weed every week doesnt hurt anyone. In the US there are enough murderer's, rapist's, pimp's and generally psycho people that you dont need the non-violent offenders behind bars. Just do a better job with taking the violent ones out of society.
US Marine - if i am smoking a joint on my walk in the park that does absolutely no harm to you, why would you want me to be put in jail??
Its not like i jack you for cash to buy my fix. I go to work and earn my money like everyone else.
Now if i did Jump ya i should go to jail. But only for the theft and possible physical damage done.
If i sold it to your 12 yar old son/ daughter then yah i should go to jail.
I know your response, so i will thank you in advance for hitting the War on Drugs rhetoric as your response. "Its illegal so just dont do it"
Thank You - Wellll thought out.
Bad example. You would go to club fed. Prison for rich white folks. You know, the ones with golf courses.usmarine wrote:
So if I hacked into someones bank account and stole all their money, I should not go to jail?PureFodder wrote:
Half of the US prison population is in for non-violent crime.
Its ALWAYS against Israel. Maybe Israel should use a little more humanity when deciding how to react to a terrorist. Terrorists dont have nationality but Israel does, therefor Israel has to act ALOT more responsibly. Its the old "do as i say not as i do" thing.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
It is happening on BOTH sides and they are both wrong and that is why it needs to stop sooner or later. The two sides have to stop the killing and the vicious cycle of death and violence. Whet I get tired of is the one sided attack against Israel when terrorists keep lobbing bombs into Israel on a daily basis. Do you think it is okay when an innocent Israeli dies from a missile or suicide attack? IT GOES BOTH WAYS AND THEY BOTH NEED TO STOP.
The Palestinians have a legitimate right and cause to have their own land and so does Israel. The main problem is that you have Islamic terror organizations using this conflict and high jacking a legitimate cause to further their effort to totally wipe out Israel. That is a FACT. If the Palestinian people could clean house and get rid of the extremism then something positive could happen.
STOP BLAMING ONE SIDE.......THE BOTH DESERVE CONDEMNATION!!!!!!!!!!!
The reason there are no "Israeli terrorist's" is because they are called the "IDF". Its the same thing just a different name.
Who commands the first few rounds???RoosterCantrell wrote:
I HAVE SOME FUCKING SWEET IDEAS:
A system (like joining a squad, in order) for RESERVING your seat in aircraft. But, if you leave a certain ring of that aircraft you lose your place in line. Only the first person in line can enter the aircraft, and the "squad" can only hold a certain set of people, so the whole team doesn't sit around waiting.
and... TRAINING!!!! You can only unlock certain thing AFTER you have properly PASSED training...like AIRCRAFT! NO MORE NOOBS CRASHING TRANSPORT CHOPPERS!!!! NO MORE NOOBS stealing planes to crash them at the end of a runway. Training for use of AA missiles. TANK training. COMMANDER TRAINING. The training should be extensive, not some lame ass tutorial. Awards for Training Achievements.
Unlockable Kit Features (2142 shock paddles was LAME) Like Spec Ops training to use C4, sniper rifles, Etc. after training.
(able to play without training, just wont be able to use certainthings.)
Commander available to uper ranks only, can only command after certain Rank (makes sense really)
SQUAD LEADER POINTS. Make it worthwhile for squad leaders to stay outside the main fight, and act as a mobile spawn point, actual team leader.
Health punishment for being in an enemy uncap (Server OPTIONAL)
5 minute IDLE kick (MANDATORY)
BETTER ANTI-HACKING FEATURES! (Good Luck EA )
So you figure that the US military doesnt use much oil + gas in the war?? They are "securing" national interest's (oil) in Iraq, but they are probably using more than the rest of the USA combined (well maybe not, but probably) but i can almost gaurantee that they use more oil and gas than 90% of sovern nations.usmarine wrote:
War has not one damn thing to do with it tbh.
War does use alot of Oil and Gas. That is part of what Hitler ran into leading to his big loss.
Seeing as your in the military (or were), how many gallons do you figure an Aircraft carrier goes through on a journey to th other side of the planet?? And then to coast around the gulf, and to fire rockets, and jets and tanks. My guess is a tank would use 10 times what a flat deck truck would use if not more.
I bet the price of oil would actually go down if there was half of the US military's supply available for the public.
Sorry, FOX is my favorite Mythology teacher, and they have the loudest voice, so i use them as reference whenever possible.ATG wrote:
Where the in the name of GREENPEACE is Fox news mentioned in any of the 4-5 sources I gave?
Methinks you comes to the table without a fork.
Do you not go to the table with a fork??
PS I bring a knife too, usually.
Nice one Slinger, I get yah (wink).GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
They seem like pretty realistic outcomes regardless of the percentages.PluggedValve wrote:
Well first off because your facts are not accurate. Sea level is not receding in the Arctic. I can assure you because i was there last spring. You can check this site. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … nuits.html
or this one: http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/n … tory=51223
The people that live there say the water level is rising and the ice level is receding. And you would prefer FOX News "global warming is a myth" story from people that live in places that dont even get winter??? And in most cases have never been to the arctic.
Seriously, how can you call it a myth?? Get yur head out the sand mate.
There are definetely some more positive "possibilities" that could happen. They are just very unlikely to happen. Lets hope one way or another things all work out for the better, doubtful as it may be
So you are on the "global cooling" team i take it? Or was that just because i tried to show that i do look at both sides of the arguement on your other post??
Well first off because your facts are not accurate. Sea level is not receding in the Arctic. I can assure you because i was there last spring. You can check this site. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … nuits.html
or this one: http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/n … tory=51223
The people that live there say the water level is rising and the ice level is receding. And you would prefer FOX News "global warming is a myth" story from people that live in places that dont even get winter??? And in most cases have never been to the arctic.
Seriously, how can you call it a myth?? Get yur head out the sand mate.
or this one: http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/n … tory=51223
The people that live there say the water level is rising and the ice level is receding. And you would prefer FOX News "global warming is a myth" story from people that live in places that dont even get winter??? And in most cases have never been to the arctic.
Seriously, how can you call it a myth?? Get yur head out the sand mate.
They seem like pretty realistic outcomes regardless of the percentages. But im "left wing". So i probably don't know what realistic is, right, Gunsinger and USMarine??
Just wondering if anyone in here HAS been to Iraq, other than at war time?/ If so perhaps share what Iraq was like during times of peace. Either before or after first Gulf War.
There are definetely some more positive "possibilities" that could happen. They are just very unlikely to happen. Lets hope one way or another things all work out for the better, doubtful as it may be.
Just wondering if anyone in here HAS been to Iraq, other than at war time?/ If so perhaps share what Iraq was like during times of peace. Either before or after first Gulf War.
There are definetely some more positive "possibilities" that could happen. They are just very unlikely to happen. Lets hope one way or another things all work out for the better, doubtful as it may be.
Why would they go public with a big military battle lost?? Seems they have a hard time getting support when they talk about all the success they are (??) having.OrangeHound wrote:
I think he was referring to the battles in Iraq ... not wars.Poseidon wrote:
First off - lol @ a bush supporter and roid rageAAFCptKabbom wrote:
- Military in shambles - FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU!!! We have never lost a military battle and they are adapting and gaining technology.
Second, um...ever hear of Vietnam? And the Air Force has already complained that they are losing their grasp of superiority in the skies. Only a matter of time before the other branches start doing the same.
And the AF is just saying that because they want more money. Happens all the time here in Washington.
Wow. People cant get enough karkand, big surprise.
you forgot the select start in yur sig.DonFck wrote:
In my personal opinion, if it's in the game, it's in the game.
Some people spam nades, some people whore choppers. Just as you like claymores.
No offense taken, opinions dont hurt me.motherdear wrote:
okay you say that bush has been the only president undermining the constitution and ignoring it, try and read up on the civil war and lincoln and then i might speak with you. sometimes things like these are justified, firstly only terror related persons/conversations can be monitere and if they hear non terror related crimes it can not be used in court. also even though most people do not think so we are at war, if we do not try and fight this war, then the next thing that might happen is a dirty bomb/nuke going of in new york or another big city. people do not imagine it they imagine a small bomb or something similar, but if the terrorist ever get their hands on a wmd then they will use it.
bush might have done some stupid things i agree with that but i don't believe all this shit about it not being well ment, and all the conspiracies going a round they are absolute bullshit to be honest.
sorry if i offended you but i just hate all this conspiracy bullshit and that people are so ignorant that they do not realise that we can't ignore these people and that they will do whatever they can to harm us.
I wish i didn't believe all these conspiracies, but, when i analyze the events and read articles from right wing, left wing and independant sources, whatever it is the government is saying rarely makes sense. In alot of cases it would make sense if you could verify what they announce by reading the "top secret" documents. Also notice the headline stories are always from an "unconfirmed source". That is supposed to be credible?? And then when they do make a mistake in reporting on their unconfirmed report, they rescind the article, but they dont put it in headlines and most people dont read the 17th page snippit saying they madde a mistake.
They try to say what is in a top secret document but wont release the document. Why are they telling me whats in the top secret document if its secret?? If you told me what it says why cant i see it to verify you aren't lying??
Most people are sheep that are easily herded into the coral. The ones not as easily herded are called "unpatriotic" or "lunatic's" or "terrorist's". That makes people less likely to stand up for their rights, because as we all know, American's dont want to be called "unpatriotic" even if it is for the most patriotic cause out there (freedom).
The irony is great in this, because the people claiming to "defend freedom" are the ones taking it away.
The irony is great in this, because the people claiming to "defend freedom" are the ones taking it away.
ventrilo??
Hmmm. Dont US made weopons kill also?? Why is it okay for the US to make and sell weopons and not okay for Iran?? The US looks more like an aggressor than Iran, what with all the iranian Military being stationed in Iran, and more than half the US Military stationed next door to Iran but over 5000 miles from home. Yah yah, they are there for Iraq, riiiiiigghhhtt.... I thought they captured Iraq in like a month or so, meh, whatever they say must be correct....dayarath wrote:
Iran manufactors weapons for the insurgents (Iranian weapons kill our soldiers.) Iran has many complaints about everyone, and threatens alot of people. They kidnapped british marines and navy personell in the same area where the speedboat incident took place. Those ships aren't just there for Iran, they're there for close support to troops on the mainland and probably for gaurding oil shipment.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Don't you think having carrier groups stationed off the coast of Iran is "annoying" to Iranians and their allies? It is what it is - the news media felt the need to comment on this particular instance as if we should be worried of a Soviet attack. It won't happen.dayarath wrote:
It is, but it's annoying at the same time, you don't just go over with heavy bombers on the people you're picking on on accident, it's done on purpose and it's these little annoyance acts that make it worse. They are provocative and they love it. Japan got the real deal, and all the more so shows Russia is being a total ass.
The ships in that gulf have a very important purpose. And Iran isn't exactly innocent. The russians are in the wrong, So is Iran if you want them in the conversation aswell. What they're doing is unacceptable at the least.
This was one reason i got kicked. Basically for whoopin them. I hadnt even got 10 kills, its like they knew me although i dont know how. My clan is U, so that will explain the "you have been kicked for the following reason: FU"
Possibly explains it. Maybe it was me not my clan i dont really know. Below is screenshot if interested.
Possibly explains it. Maybe it was me not my clan i dont really know. Below is screenshot if interested.
If i cant attack you in the uncap(which is stupid IMO) then you should not be allowed to attack me either. Would only be fair right??DSRTurtle wrote:
You got banned for that? I can understand if your camped outside the uncap and firing into it. However firing out from the uncap makes no sense at all.SplinterStrike wrote:
Shooting out of the uncap.
Its certainly not a new thing but has become worse as time moves on. Remember its election time around the corner. Think of the motives, ie. buy votes from interest groups. It just so happens that the military interest group in the US is among the most influencial groups in the world. Think of all the soldiers that will vote republican because they feel its their best chance at getting a raise or new equipment. Its really simple when you explore the possible motives of each budget.
The democrats campaign on promises of Universal Healthcare and social programs, the republicans campaign by bringing "patriotism" into things. They make people think they will treat the military better than the dem's and if you dont support the military your not patriotic. They also always promise tax cuts (usually replaced with a user-fee that goes by unnoticed until its too late).
The democrats campaign on promises of Universal Healthcare and social programs, the republicans campaign by bringing "patriotism" into things. They make people think they will treat the military better than the dem's and if you dont support the military your not patriotic. They also always promise tax cuts (usually replaced with a user-fee that goes by unnoticed until its too late).
Still play it. Not quite as often anymore. But i also hope that BF3 doesnt get ass-raped by whiners. You cant hop, or dive, or camp, or attack uncap, or anything fucking else.destruktion_6143 wrote:
My clan shut down our server in august bc we couldnt get it populated any more. i, including most of the others have moved on, bc we dont feel the comradery in playing bf2. i just wish a bf3 would come out and not get fucked in the ass by whiners.
Worst BF2 servers: BS wet dream and their other ones. They are the kings of Whine.
Is it not the teachings of Islam (could include Judaism, christianity etc...) that causes people to think its okay to attack "infidel's"?
Why do you blame the individual people who act out in the name of Islam? Is it not the teachings that gave them the idea to "defend Islam" by killing Infidels (which is easily misconstrued)?
I dont believe there are many people actually trying to destroy Islam. Yet there are alot of Muslim's who believe they are defending Islam by killing Infidel's. In fact this is doing more damage to Islam than any Infidel has ever done.
How can Islam(the religeon) accept these acts being done on behalf of Islam?? I understand there are crazy people in every walk of life, but why does it seem that people that follow Islam have a tendancy to do violent acts compared to other religeons??? Islam is the only religeon that asks its followers to kill anyone, infidel or not. So how can it claim to be a peaceful religeon??
If the teachings of Islam oppose acts of terrorism, why are there so many islamic terrorists compared to any other kind??
Do you honestly believe there is any group actively trying to wipe Islam out?? And how exactly are they doing this, if there are any??
If I politely drew your attention to an inconsistency in Islamic teachings (hypothetically) which caused you to question your religeon would that make me an "Infidel" or a friendly neighbor with a different opinion??
PS Sonata + others that have contributed. I really do appreciate you opening this topic, i find it very insightful. And i hope i dont offend you with the way i word things, as i am only curious.
Why do you blame the individual people who act out in the name of Islam? Is it not the teachings that gave them the idea to "defend Islam" by killing Infidels (which is easily misconstrued)?
I dont believe there are many people actually trying to destroy Islam. Yet there are alot of Muslim's who believe they are defending Islam by killing Infidel's. In fact this is doing more damage to Islam than any Infidel has ever done.
How can Islam(the religeon) accept these acts being done on behalf of Islam?? I understand there are crazy people in every walk of life, but why does it seem that people that follow Islam have a tendancy to do violent acts compared to other religeons??? Islam is the only religeon that asks its followers to kill anyone, infidel or not. So how can it claim to be a peaceful religeon??
If the teachings of Islam oppose acts of terrorism, why are there so many islamic terrorists compared to any other kind??
Do you honestly believe there is any group actively trying to wipe Islam out?? And how exactly are they doing this, if there are any??
If I politely drew your attention to an inconsistency in Islamic teachings (hypothetically) which caused you to question your religeon would that make me an "Infidel" or a friendly neighbor with a different opinion??
PS Sonata + others that have contributed. I really do appreciate you opening this topic, i find it very insightful. And i hope i dont offend you with the way i word things, as i am only curious.
What??? COD4 stole a BF2 map?? or is this a privately made mod??
It aint so, or go play Call of Douche 4.HSG wrote:
PPl want realism like no bunny hoppin and no seat switchin.
its a game. It aint perfect. If EA/DIce put a button in that makes you jump(coincidentaly making noobs miss) then leave it alone. I dont understand the servers/ clans that are so anti-jump/dive. If i couldn't do it i wouldn't, but i can so die bitches(noobs)!!!!
Also, its not like some ppl can do it and others cant, making an unfair advantage. Anyone CAN do it, just hit jump while running and pick a side to move to. Stupid noobs.
Think about all the prescriptions that are doled out to old people, and they do this during a "war on drugs"?? Sure some prescriptions may be helpful but there is so much crap out there now ya just never know what they are giving you. It has been portrayed in some movies like "Requiem for a dream" and "grandmas boy"(hilarious movie).
The #1 reason it should be legal is, "fuck you its my choice". There should be no arguements after that, because it is a choice everyone makes, and whichever choice you make it does not affect other people. I dont see how anyone can argue that without looking like a dictator.Ollie wrote:
I wouldn't have said so. We were mostly discussing the reasons why cannabis is illigal, and why it should be legal. Lets not be pedantic.mikkel wrote:
As far as I can tell, the premise for this entire discussion is based off of freedom of choice.Ollie wrote:
Now we are touching on the real issue. Freedom of choice.
Ok Magpie, I must have misread the "agree to disagree" part. So, sorry bout that mate.
I would check your links if you post them.
I have no links, just alot of life experience and unfinanced research. The reason i am so skeptical of "experts" is because most have not experienced drugs themselves, and they are always financed by someone who has an agenda, whether it is to keep weed illegal or to promote it as the cure to all the worlds problems.
But personally, i have somewhat more faith in the pro-pot "experts" because they have first hand experience with it, rather tha the word of some crack head trying to get some cash doing medical experimets. (Obviously it is the expert that words the report, but based on the subjects observations is what i mean). Also, the "expert" has been knwn to "interpret" what the subject says, which can end up inaccurrate.
I would check your links if you post them.
I have no links, just alot of life experience and unfinanced research. The reason i am so skeptical of "experts" is because most have not experienced drugs themselves, and they are always financed by someone who has an agenda, whether it is to keep weed illegal or to promote it as the cure to all the worlds problems.
But personally, i have somewhat more faith in the pro-pot "experts" because they have first hand experience with it, rather tha the word of some crack head trying to get some cash doing medical experimets. (Obviously it is the expert that words the report, but based on the subjects observations is what i mean). Also, the "expert" has been knwn to "interpret" what the subject says, which can end up inaccurrate.
Mr Magpie. I dont need google to know about weed. I have first hand info about it. I could write an entire encyclopedia about. Now, for all of those ppl that just post a link to some anti-drug website, youhave no first hand knowledge of what you say. You are basically a sheep being herded into a group.Magpie wrote:
Dude its not about winning and losing its a discussion, not a pissing contestOllie wrote:
Don't take this as a flame but that's a typical response of someone who is beaten and not man enough to accept they were wrong.Magpie wrote:
We can agree that we disagree and im going to leave it at that...
I wrote that since I feel that whatever i write it will not make a difference.
All i can tell you is read up about the documented side effects about weed , don't ask for a link use google like everyone else
I can tell you straight up, weed does not make you want to do harder drugs. It is you that wants to do the harder drugs, and since you tried weed and it went well, you figure lets try some coke. That is not weed telling you to do harder drugs, that is HUMAN CURIOSITY at its finest.
Mr. Magpie, your response to the guy you feel is defeated was childish. He has a differing opinion to you and saw that neither were going to change each others, so He is the bigger man by agreeing to disagree, he is not defeated.
Bottom line is the "war on drugs" has been lost and was never winable. Look at the dollars spent in the war on drugs and look at how many people who would otherwise not be criminals are in jail. That is a waste of money and effort.
The marijuana laws were originally to boost the pulp + paper industry, as hemp is a far more efficient fibre to make paper with, and the "old boys club" were invested into the pulp industry already. Also the cotton farm, slave owning MF's didnt want hemp to drive out cotton as the main clthing materiel.
On top of that we all know how the US likes their black people, and the blacks were the ones that were doing most of the weed smoking back in the day. By banning weed it would have minimal effect on the puritan white folks, so they would not be against the ban, and it would give "law enforcement" another way to get darkie behind bars. The hippocracy in US drug laws are absolutely ridiculous.
One of the more recent arguements i have heard for the anti-drug crowd is that it helps them put "real" criminals in jail. They may not be able to put "killer A" in jail due to lack of evidence, but they dont want to release him to public yet, so they hit him hard on minor charges, like Possesion. That seems like a fraudulant way of holding a suspect without due cause. If you cant hold him on the evidenc obtained, he shouldnt be held for an unrelated "crime".
FACT: there are more white marijuana users in the US than Black users (the ratio might be the other way i will admit, but...). Yet there are WAY more blacks held in prison on drug charges than whites. Racial profiling much??? Im not even an american but i see the racism in everything american. Government, laws, employment, wealth right down to the childish meaningless comments that 12 year old kids say. Its time the US changed these mental stereotypes and actually let people make their own choices as adults about things.
In a free country, anyone should be able to anything they want, as long as it doesnt infringe on someone elses freedom. And dont say your free to make a law prohibitting weed, because that infringes on others choices. As many of todays laws do.
Is that what they told you?? Alchohol is a much bigger "gateway drug". I dont know anyone that smoked a J and then decided that they should snort some coke, then upgrade to smoking it.Varegg wrote:
Weed is often the first step to other drugs later on ...
FYI i am familiar/ connected (not as a dealer per say but close) with the crowd and it is usually a drunk person that tries crack for the first time. Almost always a drunk person. Then in the morning they have a new craving that stays with them for life. But it aint because weed "opened the door for them", its because they were drunk and made a bad decision, go figure.
Ya bu you know as well as i that there is not always a gunner waiting for a ride. So if no one else wants to gun, why not solo it?? If someone asks for a ride or something i will swing around and get them, even if they ar crap. But im not going to leave the chopper for the other team to steal on us and if im flying alone, hell yah im gonna use TV.Skorpy-chan wrote:
You're denying someone the ability to gun for you, and the opportunity to learn. They were right to ban you.
What is the difference between an Infidel and a non-believer, if any?? Why do muslims tend to look down on if not hate an infidel/ non believer??
Thank You.
Thank You.
Sonata, you bring a very fresh perspective for us westerners. I have a couple questions though. You seem to contradict yourself a bit. First you said that Islam is proven then you say that you have to "believe". If its proven, then there is no need for "faith".
It seems a bit narrow for you to say that Shiites are not Muslim because they only pray 3 times a day (because of the 12th Imam, i think). They believ in 99% of the same things as you, so it seems like you believe 99% the same as a non muslim. Is that not hippocritical.
I am unclear on Mohammed's mission or purpose. I understand he was put there by Allah to spread Islam. If he is spreading Islam using violence(last ditch effort as i understand it) is that actually spreading Islam or is it spreading fear?? If they had to scare people into believing in Islam, then the people they spread it to dont truely believe in Islam. They believe in not being killed for Islam.
If muslim's see non-muslims as "infidels" then how come they can do business with the non muslim?? Seem's a bit silly to trade goods with someone you see as an enemy or lesser being. If Islam's teachings were all true, would God's people (ie. muslims in this case) be living in worse conditions than the infidels?? If so, how does that make an average muslim feel "more holy" than anyone else. Does it not raise questions at least.
If a muslim kills an "infidel", are they greeted in heaven by 40 virgins or something?? If they are, then how can a muslim sit in a room and do business with a non-muslim without being tempted to kill them. If i honestly believed that i would recieve all these great benefits for killing non-muslims why wouldn't i kill every single one i saw. Why do muslims get put in jail by other muslims for killing a non-muslim. Is it not an honour to kill an infidel??
Are infidels anyone that is not muslim or is it only an "enemy of Islam", someone who is trying to break it or convert away from it??
Thanks for the blog Sonata, i hope you dont take offense to my questions or different opinions. Regards.
It seems a bit narrow for you to say that Shiites are not Muslim because they only pray 3 times a day (because of the 12th Imam, i think). They believ in 99% of the same things as you, so it seems like you believe 99% the same as a non muslim. Is that not hippocritical.
I am unclear on Mohammed's mission or purpose. I understand he was put there by Allah to spread Islam. If he is spreading Islam using violence(last ditch effort as i understand it) is that actually spreading Islam or is it spreading fear?? If they had to scare people into believing in Islam, then the people they spread it to dont truely believe in Islam. They believe in not being killed for Islam.
If muslim's see non-muslims as "infidels" then how come they can do business with the non muslim?? Seem's a bit silly to trade goods with someone you see as an enemy or lesser being. If Islam's teachings were all true, would God's people (ie. muslims in this case) be living in worse conditions than the infidels?? If so, how does that make an average muslim feel "more holy" than anyone else. Does it not raise questions at least.
If a muslim kills an "infidel", are they greeted in heaven by 40 virgins or something?? If they are, then how can a muslim sit in a room and do business with a non-muslim without being tempted to kill them. If i honestly believed that i would recieve all these great benefits for killing non-muslims why wouldn't i kill every single one i saw. Why do muslims get put in jail by other muslims for killing a non-muslim. Is it not an honour to kill an infidel??
Are infidels anyone that is not muslim or is it only an "enemy of Islam", someone who is trying to break it or convert away from it??
Thanks for the blog Sonata, i hope you dont take offense to my questions or different opinions. Regards.
I like getting stoned. lol.King_County_Downy wrote:
Meh. Beheading is so 90's.ATG wrote:
What do we have, step by step beheading guide?
I'll check it out and get back to you.
I say bring back stoning!
If a pitbull gets even one of your wrists you can count that out of the fight. One armed BF2 player vs pitbull, hmm. I own a pitbull and he is alomost as strong as me. Being very humble, he is almost as strong as fully grown 26 year old athletic man. Plus he can jump over my head.Mek-Izzle wrote:
I could kick it in the head, bash it around with a pole. And generally go crazy on it, If I really had to and I was fighting for my life. Obviously I'm not gonna sit here and say I wouldn't be shitting myself and that I wouldn't be abit scared, but I'm pretty sure I could hold my own, based on previous experience.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
I'd like to see you fight a pitbull.Mek-Izzle wrote:
I've had to kick a couple of vicious random dogs. I reckon I could kill a dog pretty easily, even a violent one. I don't know why people are so scared of dogs.
Swans have pretty strong beaks and wings. I'd stay away from them. Plus they can fly. Flying pokemans outdo ground/fighting pokemans
it sucks!!! IMO. Jihad jeep can be fun, but you can do that on most any map. I think it was a waste myself. Everyone wanted a Chinese city map, so they made an MEC dessert map. Thanks EA, roll eyes.
I like Dane Cooke myself. I can understand what others dont like in him, but i like it. Probably the favorite is Doug Stanhope at the moment. He's a riot and has IMO a good outlook on humour that americans dont always find funny. Oh well, the rest of us get it (some americans included).
Well, it seems a bit unneccessary to go to great lengths to move the recruit office. But the request to not fund Berkely because they are not big military supporters is even stupider. Everyone has a right to support or not support a movement. But citizens of Berkely also pay taxes federally and state wise. You CANT cut their funding because they dont support a "popular" program or office. If they cut the tax funding then that would mean Berkely reidents should not have to pay taxes.
I dont live there, but if i did and they cut tax funding, i would cut my tax paying and take them to court over it. (Although they would probably win, being as how they are the lawmakers.)
I dont live there, but if i did and they cut tax funding, i would cut my tax paying and take them to court over it. (Although they would probably win, being as how they are the lawmakers.)