Killin' peaches!?! Oh, shit. I bet they're all over the place here in Georgia!! Damn, I better not go outside...No 1 Gooner wrote:
Kills some peaches? shit that IS evil!Zaitik wrote:
you guys are trying to be cool cos its 06.06.06? do you idiots even know what satanic people does? they kill some fucking cristhians and cuts them to pieches. culd you fucking wanna be satanic do that? "no i just want to play bf2 and post some shit like this to the forums" omg get a life
<runs off screaming"not the peaches,jesus christ no"!!!
Search
Search results: 963 found, showing up to 50
OK. Just so we're clear. I won't argue that we didn't get help from other European countries, mainly France.Vilham wrote:
Sorry i meant east and west which is pretty much what it was. You will actually find that alot of colonists died on the british side, the british army didnt lose many troops and that is why not much of the revolution is taught in our history classes.atlvolunteer wrote:
WTF are you talking about? The Civil War or the Revolutionary war? I am by no means a(n) historian, but as far as I know all 13 colonies fought in the Revolutionary War against the British, although there were some colonists that fought on the side of the Brits. It was not a fight between the north and the south.Vilham wrote:
You broke away from england thanks to other europians that didnt like england. some of the english generals were retards anyway. anyway tbh that wasnt a war with england, that was a war between americans, north and south on side just happened to want to stay connected to england's governing, this was an envitable break up anyway the distances are just too great. even with our ownage navy.
This is how the other euros helped the rebel states defeat the british.
"The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence,[1] was a war between Great Britain and revolutionaries within thirteen British colonies, who declared their independence as the United States of America in 1776. The war was the culmination of the American Revolution, a colonial struggle against political and economic policies of the British Empire. The war eventually widened far beyond British North America; many Native Americans also fought on both sides of the conflict.
Throughout the war, the British were able to use their naval superiority to capture and occupy coastal cities, but control of the countryside (where most of the population lived) largely eluded them. After an American victory at Saratoga in 1777, France, Spain, and the Netherlands entered the war against Great Britain. French involvement proved decisive, with a naval victory in the Chesapeake leading to the surrender of a British army at Yorktown in 1781. The Treaty of Paris in 1783 recognized the independence of the United States."
WTF are you talking about? The Civil War or the Revolutionary war? I am by no means a(n) historian, but as far as I know all 13 colonies fought in the Revolutionary War against the British, although there were some colonists that fought on the side of the Brits. It was not a fight between the north and the south.Vilham wrote:
You broke away from england thanks to other europians that didnt like england. some of the english generals were retards anyway. anyway tbh that wasnt a war with england, that was a war between americans, north and south on side just happened to want to stay connected to england's governing, this was an envitable break up anyway the distances are just too great. even with our ownage navy.
"6 6 6 The number of the beast!"HellHead wrote:
It´s a good day for some good, old Iron Maiden....
Anyone with me ?
We won not going to war with the Soviet Union and blowing up the world.cpt.fass1 wrote:
"well now that the cold war is over and we won. What did we win?"
This is by no means an excuse, as I agree with you, but they are probably afraid that if they speak out against the extremists, they will become targeted by these groups.-F8-Scotch wrote:
How many Islamic nations have come out to denounce violence against Western persons? How many have come out to denounce violence against other Islamic peoples?
WOw I just keep racking up the negative karma off this thread. I just found out I'm a "sand nigger lover ". Thanks for clueing me in, dude!
OMG GS, you crack me up sometimes! LOL
I don't think that is really the reason they were able to take the planes hostage. Prior to 9/11, people generally didn't get hurt when a plane was hijacked. They probably thought they'd get diverted somewhere, sit for a little while, then get to go home. In other words, they didn't think it was worth losing their lives. That's why things were different with the 4th plane. They knew they were fucked if they didn't do anything, so they tried to take the plane back.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Yeah but when is enough, enough? In all honesty we as a people in America need to toughen up, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened in pre 90 era. A bunch of people with knives should not have been able to take over a full plane, at all. That's why over control of government is a bad thing, if they had guns I'd say differently but some many people in this country are pussified by an over abundance of police presense and fear tactics.
Now really think about this, in my state it's illegal(and you can get arrested) for defending yourself in a fight. Because they don't want to sort out who started it.
BTW Downy, I love that sig, man!
If I remember correctly, he did say he was an inbred redneck.kr@cker wrote:
I was sorta wrong, he said "cretinous simpleton" not dumb, on a side note, check the "Dvinsk Clan - Parkour part 1" vid, that dude watches way too much Jackie Chan movies, music's pretty good even though i have no clue what they're saying
Gotta love these stupid pricks that give negative karma with reasons like this: "I hope one my boys rams a 747 into your fucking home"
I guess he's a muslim extremist...
I guess he's a muslim extremist...
They'll make everyone wear boxing gloves.Erkut.hv wrote:
So what are they going to do when ass whippins' by fist go on the rise? Outlaw fists?
I have always held you brits in high regard and am glad that we have remained such good allies.
That will never happen. I just looked over the popular vote results going back to the 1900 election. The highest I could find in that time period was Johnson with 61% of the popular vote. There have been elections where the winner won 90% or more of the electoral vote, but not the popular vote.remo wrote:
I still don't know which president would have been better. Wish we could get rid of these fucking right- and left-wingers out of the election and back into something more moderate that is more likely to please the majority (read: 85% versus 50.5%).
Reference: http://uselectionatlas.org/
Good idea! We should all just wear riot gear around! Can I get a full body suit that makes me look like Iron Man?=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
That's whole point, it seems very closed thinking to say I need a knife to protect myself when walking around with riot gear is a lot more safer.Kontrolfreq wrote:
That's a nice point there, maybe everyone should buy riot gear and then we'd all feel safer lol
LOl you'll probably get a lot of negs for that spittle...
I think you misunderstand us. It is not that we think (or spend a lot of time worrying about whether) we are going to be attacked, rather that if we are attacked we want to have the right to defend ourselves with whatever means necessary.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
A lot of the debate here seems to stem around "the right to defend yourself" and most of confusion is coming from the US entries. I think the fact you feel so strong about this "right" says a lot about your country (or region of your country to be more accurate).
By saying you carry, or have stockpiled, any sort of weapon to defend yourself is basically saying "there is a strong possibility I'll be attacked".
I live in the UK and I don't feel the possibility of me being attacked warrants a need to carry a weapon. I'm not saying we have no victims of crime, or that it couldn't be reduced much further, but the chances of you having to defend yourself for your life is extremely rare in the UK.
I don't know the stats but I would highly suprised if the chances of being attacked in the U.S outweigh other life threatening events that you are prepared to take no precautions for. I wonder just how many Americans spend all day in Mcdonalds increasing the chances of a heart attack before going home and polish their "life preserving" gun, or how many of those guys who race their cars on public roads have got guns for "protection".
I'm not trying to flame US citizens with whole overweight stereotype but you can see what I mean. They claim they need a gun to save their own life in an extremely rare event but are prepared to waive this self importance in other areas....
Of course not all terrorists are muslims, but the fact of the matter is that currently the majority of terrorist acts are perpetrated by muslims.
I think we should just blow up China. Then we won't have a problem.
Seriously, though, the US already has huge trade deficit with China, which is probably going to get worse...
Seriously, though, the US already has huge trade deficit with China, which is probably going to get worse...
I think we need to start a new forum and call it "9/11 Conspiracy theory threads"...
well, I got neg karma for my sig. I think somebody is just neg karmaing people for no reason.
Oh, gee, another 9/11 conspiracy video? Yaaay!
I'll pass.
I'll pass.
Yeah, those Christians were waging war on everybody 1000 years ago. Honestly, there is no comparison. Christianity has matured; Islam has not.Bubbalo wrote:
And who were the ones who waged a series of devestating wars on a group of Muslims in the middle ages? Oh, that's right, peace loving Christians. How about you stick to the topic?Major_Spittle wrote:
What a crazy cult, but they aren't so bad compared to the ones that strap bombs to themselves or fly planes into buildings. OH wait, those aren't crazy cultists, they are those peace loving muslims. My bad.
OMG Kerry is teh devil!spastic bullet wrote:
Yeah, why does nobody take worldnetdaily.com seriously?!yerded wrote:
umm...debate and serious talk anyone? Hello...? This thing on...[ thump thump ] test, test.
Yeah, that shit is going on here now too. I think it is bullshit...[bpuk]jack wrote:
another PC thing in britian is christmas in most places is being renamed Winter festival and you have a winter tree and winter light....apparently its insulting and offensive to muslims<<<once again>>>but i say ramadan and whatever else is insulting to me so are they going to rename that ? NO!...(EED(spelt wrong i no) etc)
all i can say is if i went to pakistan and said that their flag was offensive id be stoned and thrown out of the country
LOL that's great. PC is getting bad in the States as well. Really pisses me off.[bpuk]jack wrote:
Just found the front page on teh suns website...this is todays and this is what has got a hell of a lot of people annoyed because a lot of large complanies have banned their drivers from flying teh flags --NTL, BT, TESCO etc
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h248/ … 097600.jpg
Even after you reword it, it is still contrary to your previous assertions. By saying, "I am proud of my kids' effort," you are not saying that their effort was superior to anybody elses, only that you are proud of what they did.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
The problem with that is what exactly are you proud of? If you think about it when you say something like that in that context you are actually saying I am proud of "the effort" my kids put in even though they lost. You wouldn't say you were proud of the loss itself, agreed? Thus you are proud of a positive (their hard work) and not a negative.
A better example of what I'm trying to say would be if your kid got a D in school and you said you were proud of them. Again, you would be proud of the effort rather than the result because if you say "I'm proud my kid got a D" you are actaully saying you expected them to get a lower mark....
Hope that makes sense!!!!!
P.S. There is a difference between being happy or content and being prideful. I you say "I'm proud to be Irish" you are implying that you would not like to be another race and thus you must be, by definition, superior. I'm happy being Irish/white/black etc sounds better.
hey toecutter, you got any extra tinfoil?
ROFL man that is good...wanderlost wrote:
Recent (2000) events have ensured that Santa's B&E days are done with:Major_Spittle wrote:
Santa is not American. He is just another illegal immigrant that sneaks across the border and breaks into houses. So no, I don't care that he is fat. He obviously isn't stupid because he has never been caught, but he is definately lazy. He makes short people do all his work, which is ok by me cause I don't like short people.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Really? I thought America's biggest export was anorexia. Well, films and general pop culture with lots of anorexic females. Do you wish Santa was thin too?
BTW, Santa isn't real. I don't want to argue with you about this cause I don't have any prof. Maybe the people that put out that Pentagon video have one about him so you will believe me.
Sorry to have broke the news to you:(
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g278/ … bstone.jpg
whittsend, I may be incorrect, but I think mikkel's stance is that it is okay to shoot infantry with a .50 cal MG, but you should not shoot infantry with a .50 cal sniper rifle. Personally, I don't really see the difference...
I think something needs to be cleared up here. whittsend, Gunslinger, and whoever else has actually been in the military and been there: How often are .50 sniper rifles actually issued? Are they commonly used? I would think that they are not that common, but, as I have never been in the military, I don't know.
Oh, so he should have just allowed them to beat the shit out of him (or worse) and take his money? SHe wasn't some innocent bystander. She was one of the perpetrators and got what she deserved.mikkel wrote:
But hey, it's nice to see that your rights to carry leathal weapons only come at the cost of a teenage girl's life.
But you're not allowed to be proud of that!-Solv3r- wrote:
Well, the country I live in has actually been named as the best country to live in, by the UN.
Enough said...
So, is it your opinion that we should not try to control immigration at all?CommieChipmunk wrote:
we were founded by immigration!!! i'm sure the indians would consider us ILLEGAL immigrants but we just shoved them onto reservations.... or just killed them...PspRpg-7 wrote:
What don't some people not under stand about ILLEGAL immigrants
Former Marine kills would-be robberUnOriginalNuttah wrote:
It's funny that you people are actually saying we need to encourage more violence over here by allowing people to carry lethal weapons like knifes for 'self defence'. Trust me, over here enough people get stamped to death in 'self defence' and a knife isn't ever going to do you any good, because attacks are usually carried out against lone individuals or small groups by large groups of nuttahs. I don't think I've ever seen a 1 on 1 street fight.... plenty of 4+ on 1 though... also, in my experience the first blows will almost always come from behind... if a large group of people surrounds you and you feel threatened and pull out a knife, do you think they will go easy on you, or will they stamp you proper? If you manage to stab one of them, do you think they will all run off, or will they hold you to the floor and stab you up 10 times as much with your own knife?RoofusMcDoofus wrote:
In other words: Won't someone think of the children?the article wrote:
A Home Office spokesman said the emphasis of the campaign was to try to stop people carrying knives because of the risk that the weapon could be used against the carrier.
Pathetic.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/ … arine.html
Five people come after an ex-marine with a shotgun and a pistol. He pulls his knife, kills one, and injures another...
I don't like Michael Moore because he passes lies and distortions off as a straight documentary (until he gets sued, in which case he claims it's an op-ed piece). There are too many to go into. Just to to this site for a good example:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysi … it-911.htm
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysi … it-911.htm
Where exactly did I say religion is bad?|DL|Krokkieboy wrote:
whats with the continuesly bashing on religions on these forums?Dont you have something better to do , if you think religion is bad, why don't you walk in a temple , mosque or church , im sure your welcome and get ur own opinion how its there for real instead posting time after time the small part of people that are unguided or teached wrong abt Islam for example.from the 1 billion people that are muslim...im sure there are parts that hate you...simply because your violent to them aswell
American and proud of it. I don't see what the problem is with being proud of your country...
You can believe in both. A lot of Christians believe that God created man through evolution. The problem is that most people who want creationism or ID taught in school want:-F8-Scotch wrote:
I'm still confused why one can't believe in both? Scientific research leans to the theory, no fact here and many will argue that "facts" don't exsist, that man man came from an ape/human ancestor. Creationism/Intelligent design charges that "God" made all that is. So, what's the big freakin' deal? Can't a Christian believe that God had a hand in splitting that monkey gene which sent man onto become the overall winner in the evolutionary lottery? It seems to me that Christians just don't want to be tied to monkeys, which boggles me because like Ninja and Pirates, Monkeys rock!
Creationism, along with most other major schools of religious thought, should by all means be taught in school under a banner of philosophical discussion...not science. There's no "scientific" merit to creationism but ia fundamental corner stone of our country is Christianity much less religious beliefs in general. ID isn't science but many folks, even some who aren't "religious", believe there is a higher power. Maybe someday that "higher power" will step in to bitch slap all of us. Untill then we have to go with what works the best for society and for better or worse it's scientific values and research. That isn't to say everyone has to believe in Evolution, however Evolutionary theory belongs in science class and not religious theory.
This is all just part of a bigger problem which should be reserved for another thread. Religion in today's modernized times of instant answers and more difficult questions. Hell, if it wasn't for Wiki or other online information resources, I'd be lost to one extent or another. Everyone has to settle themselves and thier beliefs with a new wave of modernity which could make or break religions. Taking you ball, or in this case Bible, and going home isn't going to change anything.
ps-anybody here a "pastafarian"? It's probably old hat, just figured that maybe the FSM followers would have something to add.
A. Creationism/ID taught right along with Evolution in Science class (while stressing that Evolution is only a theory) or
B. Creationism/ID taught in place of Evolution in Science class
If they would just allow it to be taught in a philosophy class that also discussed other religions/ideas, there wouldn't be a problem. (actually there would; somebody would find something to bitch about. they always do...)
Haha I got a neg. karma for starting this thread with no comment! Gotta love it!
If this happened then it is good to hear. It seems to me that usually when these "extremists" do something, the "moderate" muslims remain silent. If they don't want us to associate them with the extremists, they need to open their mouths and denounce what they are doing.CameronPoe wrote:
Official apologies were made by certain muslim parties
If you had read all of the post preceding yours, you would see that most christians outspokenly opposed what these nutcases did.tip700 wrote:
i also remember seeing picture and video footage of some sorta christian organisaiton compaigning at dead soldiers funerals that they were punished by god and god would cleanse everyone or some shit, i agree with the comment every religoun has its extremists
Spumantiii, read this:Spumantiii wrote:
I'd like to add that I think allowing guns is allowing people to take the law into their own hands. I agree that having defence for your home is acceptable, I've been robbed before, and having something is good (crowbar will do) to wave at them and scare em off. But, the reason people seem to have for carrying is that they want to be prepared for an inevitable attack, or they have no confidence in the police to do their jobs, or they have no faith in their govt. to watch out for their behalf. What that means is gun owners that carry don't believe in the system, and are only carrying to protect themselves. That means the system needs to change, so nobody needs to carry a gun except police, that or the gun owners need to change. At that point, once most people have turned guns in sensibly understanding the benefits of compliance, there are the leftovers who just want guns plainly because it is their right, there is no other reason than that they are nice shiny bits of engineering to look at. Then ask those people why they still want them, they say because they can, and because they always have been able to.
I'd have to say that people who trust noone can't be trusted, and owning guns, if all americans were so anxious you'd have by far the most fucked up society on earth, imagine a simple misunderstanding.. boom you're dead, too late. Shoot first ask later.
The number of deaths prevented by guns owned by civilians are so few and far between compared to the number of murders caused by civilian owned guns. PLUS if you kill someone in defence, you saved a life, but you offset it with a death it's hardly productive. Find me a statistic about how many people were saved by guns last year, and compare it to the number of murders.
It's a classic case of everyone saying well if he has one I have to as well, or well what's one less gun going to do, it's hardly a patriotic stand to own a gun since you are seperating yourself in trust of your nation, you're saying it's the opposite, like each house is it's own rebellious state and you'll be shot in pre-emptive defence on tresspass (loose term)
a state of vigilantes, clse to anarchy, no policing unless by yourselves
http://www.gunfacts.info/
Actually, according to the Webster online dictionary:Xietsu wrote:
And "spelt" is actually spelled "spelled". Always ironic to me when people misspell "misspelled" or "spelled" after making such a correction.
Main Entry: spelt
Pronunciation: 'spelt
chiefly British past and past participle of SPELL
EDIT: Doh! Somebody beat me to it. As to the argument, I agree with Marconius: if Creation or ID is to be taught, it should be taught in Philosophy, not Science class.
I found a link to this from another site I visit and thought it worth posting here.
http://atheistvoices.com/islamlove.htm
Boy, those muslims sure are a peace-loving people...
http://atheistvoices.com/islamlove.htm
Boy, those muslims sure are a peace-loving people...
LOL Introducing the first chicano redneck!GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
whoever -karma me calling me redneck is one stupid racist peice of shit.splixx wrote:
BingoBN wrote:
Hitler said it was time to go.
so i guess every soldier fighting in the war is a nazi, is that what your saying BN. Because as a former soldier, i had no choice on whether or not to goto iraq you dumbfuck. But regardless, as a soldier, my job was to fight in war, a job that I chose.
im not white asshole
My apologies. I made an (apparently incorrect) assumption based on your posts in this thread, mainly the one I quoted.cailuc wrote:
I was making an observation, I never said that global warming was a result of mans activities.
I happen to agree with you 'atlvolunteer'.
Interesting that the people who believe global warming to be man-made never give any proof.cailuc wrote:
Interesting that the majority of people debunking global warming in this thread come from a country that refused to sign up to Kyoto. Go figure.
Here is 420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vost … lation.jpg
If you look at this data, the earth appears to be in an upward shift, which in and of itself explains why global temperatures are rising.
Here is another figure that "shows apparent correlations between historical CO2 and temperature records based on Antarctic ice cores, providing data for the last 750,000 years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2- … e-plot.png
Once again, what appears to be a natural increase...
I have seen data that tries to suggest that we are increasing global warming, but the majority of it has been suspect IMO. The majority of the data I have seen, however, has led me to believe that the earth is merely following its natural pattern.
They're not allowed to print that! It implies that the ozone situation is improving, which defeats their case!