This is still not correct no matter how many times you parrot it. Europe's population is larger than that of the US ("tens of millions"? Really??). European countries are not as homogeneous as you seem to think. Does it hurt you so much to admit that the US has some inherent issues and is not as wonderful as you seem to think it is? You appear to have no idea what you're talking about, but spewing some sort of desperate "leave my country alone! I love it so much!!!" shield in some vain attempt to save you having to realise your love for your country is misplaced, and that you are actually part of the problem and not the solution.
Brits didn't carry guns around before the ban. You are applying NRA logic and talking points to a country where it simply doesn't wash. Get a grip - you are looking really foolish to anyone who knows one iota about Britain or the laws of the land.
Save your electrons. The guy's a big-headed nutter drowning in hubris. If the senior architect himself doesn't think something's true, then nothing on the face of this planet will change his mind.
They make money hand-over-fist from the money they have sitting in their accounts. This weird notion of banks charging for everything seems peculiarly American.
Those governments will do it for any established religion, and passes the money on to them. It's essentially an automatic, opt-in tithe, dealt with by the government finance office. The government favours no particular religion in this arrangement.
The churches they oppressed were simply not adhering to the religion of the state, and so were deemed dangerous. They were not atheists - they worshipped the state. Just because someone or a group of people don't believe in the Christian god (or any particular god of choice) doesn't make them atheist. They have to not believe in any gods at all, even ones who they deem walk among us.
It's just become patently obvious to me that you are deluded beyond belief. All your "Leave the NSA alone!" posts seem far less intelligent. The various curtains you allude to were formed by worshippers - people who worshipped the state, its political party, and especially its leader. They were not atheists in any meaningful sense (apart from when a theist needs to somehow show that atheism is bad, that is, in which case logic has already flown out of the window). You are implying that when someone doesn't believe in god they get literature to prove the point? That seems like ridiculous confirmation bias to me. There are plenty of atheists out there who fly under your outrage radar, who do not preach a negative, who take no position on things as trivial as belief in supernatural puppeteers. But no, that would require admission that your understanding of the world isn't perfect, which seems to be one hell of a character flaw you have, which would explain your ridiculous defence of the NSA et. al. You seem well equipped to take orders from people you deem "better" than you. Maybe you should work on your self esteem, realise you are inherently flawed as a human being (as we all are), and start to think for yourself, assuming that even if those you think are indeed "better" than you, that unless you demonstrate that to yourself with total honesty and consistent logic, there is no way to be sure? Or ignore logic and keep on believing in nonsense which, if your are lucky, will lead you nowhere, and if unlucky, will destroy every vestige of humanity you are lucky enough to possess.
"Tyranny of the masses" is entirely democratic. It also has nothing to do with whether the country is a monarchy or not. You seem to be getting your words mixed up. That fact alone casts considerable doubt on the rest of your posts. If you don't know what the words you use mean, what else have you got completely wrong?
There are indeed some innocent parties - not every country on the planet is trying to save all information about everyone. Yes, some are engaged in similar areas of activity as the NSA, but to say they are equally as guilty is ridiculous when you compare the scale and scope of their operations. Simply put: Not all intelligence agencies the world over want to be able to monitor everyone. Saying "there are no innocent parties" is like saying the rapist is just as bad as the litterer. Technically you are correct, but you've reduced the discussion to pointless banality for no other purpose than making excuses for the head-and-shoulders worst offender.
Even if he did say what you claim he did, Kitty Hawk was not the first demonstration of powered, heavier-than-air flight. And before that spate of planes the Montgolfier brothers might have something to say. If you're going to blame someone for being incorrect, it helps to not be incorrect yourself.
The only non-PC thing you could say is that the whites were good because they were white, and the blacks bad because they were black. Everything else has nothing to do with "political correctness" (or, as decent folk call it: "accuracy").
You're oversimplifying the situation to the point of absurdity. Yes, the majority was Northern Irish vs. Northern Irish, but it was between Catholic and Protestant, with the Protestants being mainly allied to Britain and the Catholics mainly to Ireland. The Catholics were upset with the institutionalised discrimination against them by the British-led institutions, and the Protestants were in favour of supporting those institutions. Clearly British influence had everything to do with the issue as the number of Protestants in Northern Ireland would have been drastically lower without British settlement and influence. The police were indeed mainly Northern Irish - and Protestant at that, which really didn't help the issue one iota. The British government refused to acknowledge the issues raised by the Catholics, and definitely refused to address them (as they didn't exist, according to the British government), hence the continuous rise of the IRA, and then the Protestant groups which gained power in order to fight them and support the Protestant cause. But I guess if you ignore pretty much everything it was as simple as you stated.
It's not great that Chinese factories are polluting, just as it's not great that we are wasting tonnes of plastic a year for no reason. Let's try to solve both - the first with diplomacy, aid, education, and trade instruments, and the second with logic and common sense.
There you go again. "Just like Tesla had"? No. The Tesla fires were after collisions, the Ford fires were after nothing. Why are you so eager to lie? Cars catch fire after collisions frequently - any moving object with enough stored energy to keep the object moving at highway speeds for hundreds of miles is going to cause issues when it is structurally compromised. ICE cars, electric cars, steam vehicles, the log - they all have issues when they massive chunks are ripped out of them. No-one is complaining about the tens-of-thousands of non-Tesla collision-related fires out there (which are usually far less survivable than Tesla's fires). Your bias is showing. It's ugly.
So, according to you, there is no difference between a parked, undamaged car catching fire, and a car involved in a collision which tears through the chassis, which eventually catches fire after politely warning the occupier that a fire is quite possible, and that fire doesn't consume the car. Gotcha. And you have the gall to complain about bias? Grow up. Seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
You know far less than you think you do. It appears they should fix the educations system in the US if you are any indicator of its success.
This is still not correct no matter how many times you parrot it. Europe's population is larger than that of the US ("tens of millions"? Really??). European countries are not as homogeneous as you seem to think. Does it hurt you so much to admit that the US has some inherent issues and is not as wonderful as you seem to think it is? You appear to have no idea what you're talking about, but spewing some sort of desperate "leave my country alone! I love it so much!!!" shield in some vain attempt to save you having to realise your love for your country is misplaced, and that you are actually part of the problem and not the solution.
And most guns used in crime were legally-owned before being stolen. Your point?
Brits didn't carry guns around before the ban. You are applying NRA logic and talking points to a country where it simply doesn't wash. Get a grip - you are looking really foolish to anyone who knows one iota about Britain or the laws of the land.
That price is not just for the website. Please learn. Oh who am I kidding. It's you.
Save your electrons. The guy's a big-headed nutter drowning in hubris. If the senior architect himself doesn't think something's true, then nothing on the face of this planet will change his mind.
They make money hand-over-fist from the money they have sitting in their accounts. This weird notion of banks charging for everything seems peculiarly American.
Those are not wire transfers. Wire transfers are between people via an intermediate actor, whereas bank transfers are between accounts between banks.
The cultural revolution which replaced all previous gods with new gods - Mao & the state? If you think they were atheist you really should read more.
Those governments will do it for any established religion, and passes the money on to them. It's essentially an automatic, opt-in tithe, dealt with by the government finance office. The government favours no particular religion in this arrangement.
Well, there is no evidence the "historical" Jesus was the same guy written about in the Bible, so I don't know what point you're trying to prove :)
The churches they oppressed were simply not adhering to the religion of the state, and so were deemed dangerous. They were not atheists - they worshipped the state. Just because someone or a group of people don't believe in the Christian god (or any particular god of choice) doesn't make them atheist. They have to not believe in any gods at all, even ones who they deem walk among us.
It's just become patently obvious to me that you are deluded beyond belief. All your "Leave the NSA alone!" posts seem far less intelligent. The various curtains you allude to were formed by worshippers - people who worshipped the state, its political party, and especially its leader. They were not atheists in any meaningful sense (apart from when a theist needs to somehow show that atheism is bad, that is, in which case logic has already flown out of the window). You are implying that when someone doesn't believe in god they get literature to prove the point? That seems like ridiculous confirmation bias to me. There are plenty of atheists out there who fly under your outrage radar, who do not preach a negative, who take no position on things as trivial as belief in supernatural puppeteers. But no, that would require admission that your understanding of the world isn't perfect, which seems to be one hell of a character flaw you have, which would explain your ridiculous defence of the NSA et. al. You seem well equipped to take orders from people you deem "better" than you. Maybe you should work on your self esteem, realise you are inherently flawed as a human being (as we all are), and start to think for yourself, assuming that even if those you think are indeed "better" than you, that unless you demonstrate that to yourself with total honesty and consistent logic, there is no way to be sure? Or ignore logic and keep on believing in nonsense which, if your are lucky, will lead you nowhere, and if unlucky, will destroy every vestige of humanity you are lucky enough to possess.
"Tyranny of the masses" is entirely democratic. It also has nothing to do with whether the country is a monarchy or not. You seem to be getting your words mixed up. That fact alone casts considerable doubt on the rest of your posts. If you don't know what the words you use mean, what else have you got completely wrong?
There are indeed some innocent parties - not every country on the planet is trying to save all information about everyone. Yes, some are engaged in similar areas of activity as the NSA, but to say they are equally as guilty is ridiculous when you compare the scale and scope of their operations. Simply put: Not all intelligence agencies the world over want to be able to monitor everyone. Saying "there are no innocent parties" is like saying the rapist is just as bad as the litterer. Technically you are correct, but you've reduced the discussion to pointless banality for no other purpose than making excuses for the head-and-shoulders worst offender.
Even if he did say what you claim he did, Kitty Hawk was not the first demonstration of powered, heavier-than-air flight. And before that spate of planes the Montgolfier brothers might have something to say. If you're going to blame someone for being incorrect, it helps to not be incorrect yourself.
The only non-PC thing you could say is that the whites were good because they were white, and the blacks bad because they were black. Everything else has nothing to do with "political correctness" (or, as decent folk call it: "accuracy").
I think they cancel each other out... Maybe they're on to something.
Again, according to the original author who has very limited access to the facts and a history of straight-up lying about these cases.
Apart from the bright red light on the device showing it's using its camera, you're entirely correct.
Poor choice. That could void your warranty, as the extra horsepower would put more stress on the suspension.
You're oversimplifying the situation to the point of absurdity. Yes, the majority was Northern Irish vs. Northern Irish, but it was between Catholic and Protestant, with the Protestants being mainly allied to Britain and the Catholics mainly to Ireland. The Catholics were upset with the institutionalised discrimination against them by the British-led institutions, and the Protestants were in favour of supporting those institutions. Clearly British influence had everything to do with the issue as the number of Protestants in Northern Ireland would have been drastically lower without British settlement and influence. The police were indeed mainly Northern Irish - and Protestant at that, which really didn't help the issue one iota. The British government refused to acknowledge the issues raised by the Catholics, and definitely refused to address them (as they didn't exist, according to the British government), hence the continuous rise of the IRA, and then the Protestant groups which gained power in order to fight them and support the Protestant cause. But I guess if you ignore pretty much everything it was as simple as you stated.
Or, we could be sane:
It's not great that Chinese factories are polluting, just as it's not great that we are wasting tonnes of plastic a year for no reason. Let's try to solve both - the first with diplomacy, aid, education, and trade instruments, and the second with logic and common sense.
There you go again. "Just like Tesla had"? No. The Tesla fires were after collisions, the Ford fires were after nothing. Why are you so eager to lie? Cars catch fire after collisions frequently - any moving object with enough stored energy to keep the object moving at highway speeds for hundreds of miles is going to cause issues when it is structurally compromised. ICE cars, electric cars, steam vehicles, the log - they all have issues when they massive chunks are ripped out of them. No-one is complaining about the tens-of-thousands of non-Tesla collision-related fires out there (which are usually far less survivable than Tesla's fires). Your bias is showing. It's ugly.
So, according to you, there is no difference between a parked, undamaged car catching fire, and a car involved in a collision which tears through the chassis, which eventually catches fire after politely warning the occupier that a fire is quite possible, and that fire doesn't consume the car. Gotcha. And you have the gall to complain about bias? Grow up. Seriously.