x
Latest users (1): drastronomy, anonymous(18).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#85568 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
Thai Royal : Holocaust never happened
www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/561539/israel-disappointed-over-thai-royal-holocaust-denial
>Israel's embassy in Thailand expressed its disappointment Thursday over statements made by a minor Thai royal denying the holocaust.
>Ambassador Simon Roded expressed "disappointment and regret" over the comment by ML Rungguna Kitiyakara, a descendent of 19th-century King Rama V and a distant cousin of HM Queen Sirikit.
>On his Facebook, ML Rungguna praised Nazi leader Adolf Hitler as a genius and patriot, and said the holocaust was "propaganda".
>Mr Roded's statement, written in Thai, said it was "a shame that someone with such opportunity, and education… would perpetuate a myth that history has proven false."
>Around 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis during the Third Reich.
>ML Rungguna wrote of his appreciation to Hitler on April 20, he Nazi leader's birthday, He said he beleived Hitler made some mistakes but he was a genius and a patriot, so his life was worth studying.
>ML Rungguna viewed that Hitler was a statesman who had been destroyed by Jewish bankers and Zionists and been imputed as the bad guy for the holocaust which ML Rungguna claimed did not actually occur. It was propaganda to establish sympathy to expel and kill Palestinians from their homeland so the Jews would have their own state, he wrote.
>ML Rungguna, 46, is a son of MR Kiartiguna Kitiyakara and Thailand's former Miss Universe Apassara Hongsakul. He had become a monk for several years and now is a farmer and activist for energy reform.
User avatar #85597 to #85568 - kanadetenshi (05/15/2015) [-]
He must browse /pol/
User avatar #85569 to #85561 - mvtjets (05/15/2015) [-]
pls stop shtpost i beg u oy bey
User avatar #85555 - topoftherock (05/14/2015) [-]
i've heard a little bit about it. but what is Fast Track and why should i oppose it?
User avatar #85560 to #85555 - pebar (05/14/2015) [-]
"Under fast track, formally called trade promotion authority, Congress agrees to vote yes or no on a trade pact but not to amend it. All major trade deals for decades have passed Congress that way. That is because trade partners won’t reveal their bottom lines in negotiations if they think Congress could step in afterward and rewrite the contents of a trade deal."
www.wsj.com/articles/rand-pauls-fast-track-dilemma-1431387236
User avatar #85559 to #85555 - pebar (05/14/2015) [-]
it is congress giving the president the authority to set international trade agreements
it's fairly controversial because it bypasses congress

at least that's what I'm reading

free trade is good so you can ignore all the horse shit about it "destroys american jobs"
User avatar #85572 to #85559 - kanadetenshi (05/15/2015) [-]
Free trade is good. But the TPP is not free trade, it's a trojan horse for crony capitalism and free speech supression.
#85594 to #85572 - pebar (05/15/2015) [-]
How's that?
because of some compyright/trademark stuff?
User avatar #85595 to #85594 - kanadetenshi (05/15/2015) [-]
Well for one there's very little that has been shown to the public about TPP so the lack of transparency is already a red flag but the stuff we do know includes a shitload of internet censorship rules and radical IP laws that makes the bill essentially another SOPA.

Plus i don't think we need government managed agreements in order to have free trade. Ron Paul did a good argument on it.
#85545 - anon (05/14/2015) [-]
User avatar #85547 to #85545 - marinepenguin (05/14/2015) [-]
Cops who do shit like this are trash. Assuming that this event actually happened.
#85544 - britbong (05/14/2015) [-]
>>45162309 (OP)   
   
>not posting the superior Independent version.   
   
Jeezo anon.   
   
>Britain is too tolerant and should interfere more in people's lives, says David Cameron   
   
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-is-too-tolerant-and-should-interfere-more-in-peoples-lives-says-david-cameron-10246517.html   
   
>At the National Security Council today Mr Cameron unveiled a series of measures that he said would crack down on people holding minority “extremist” views that differed from Britain’s consensus.   
   
>The package of powers, first proposed in March, would allow courts to force a person to send their tweets and Facebook posts to the police for approval.   
   
   
FARAGE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS   
THIS IS THE FUTURE YOU CHOSE
>>45162309 (OP)

>not posting the superior Independent version.

Jeezo anon.

>Britain is too tolerant and should interfere more in people's lives, says David Cameron

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-is-too-tolerant-and-should-interfere-more-in-peoples-lives-says-david-cameron-10246517.html

>At the National Security Council today Mr Cameron unveiled a series of measures that he said would crack down on people holding minority “extremist” views that differed from Britain’s consensus.

>The package of powers, first proposed in March, would allow courts to force a person to send their tweets and Facebook posts to the police for approval.


FARAGE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS
THIS IS THE FUTURE YOU CHOSE
#85550 to #85544 - schnizel (05/14/2015) [-]
This is the future you chose.
User avatar #85556 to #85550 - thekame ONLINE (05/14/2015) [-]
Also, one of your links mentioned a number of " at least 1,400" victims, spread over a period of twenty years that is 60 a year, that is not even close to the 85,000 rapes which happened in 2006. With this I conclude that your claim of causation is complete and utter bullshit, and it is just because those place are the urban centres of the UK.
User avatar #85567 to #85556 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
at least 1400 victims, that were used as hookers
but a victim can be raped more than once and there is an estimate that they molested around a million girls
User avatar #85591 to #85567 - thekame ONLINE (05/15/2015) [-]
>a victim can be raped more than once
You are correct that that can happen, but are their actual statistics about that? I couldn't find them anyway.

>there is an estimate that they molested around a million girls
>estimate
estimates mean literally jack shit unless they are backed by facts.

>molested
Molestation isn't rape, it is an entirely different crime, with entirely different statistics attached to it.
User avatar #85602 to #85591 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
If they touched little girls they deserve to have their arms broken.
Also from my paki /pol/ack:
Islam is ridden with contradictions. Fornication or rape may be forbidden but the fact that you need to produce 4 witnesses to prove that anything happened makes it very easy to work around. Also, it's not always so black and white.

Bacha-bazi is mainly a Afghan/Pashtun thing but the reason it exists in the first place is because people are not allowed to express themselves sexually.

Corrective rape may be touted as a scourge by mainstream Pakistani society but the practice of Karo Kari and the fucked up shit Jirgas get up to in the name of honour is pretty big in the moral rural areas.

Stop being so hostile, btw. I am no chamcha. We need to acknowledge there is a problem before we can even attempt to figure out a solution.

Another Paki here. I think Islam is definitely to blame here. Pakistani culture derives from the worst kind of feudalism and a lot of it uses Islam to legitimize itself. So there is a lot of sexual repression. Also, women are seen as mere objects. So these fuckers go on to live out their worst fantasies on some helpless little girls with the knowledge of the Pakistani community and nobody bats an eye. Fornication may be forbidden but many Afghans and Pakistanis practise bacha-bazi or pederasty. Also, corrective rape is apparently a-okay! Women are routinely raped, paraded naked in rural areas. Anything for the family's honour, eh?

Sahih al-Bukhari 3896—Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Al-Madina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5158—Narrated Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Sahih Muslim 3310—Aisha reported: Allah’s Apostle married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Muslim 3311—Aisha reported that Allah’s Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Sunan Abu Dawud 2116—Aishah said: The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old. (The narrator Sulaiman said: Or six years.) He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old.
pedo prophet

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
User avatar #85604 to #85602 - thekame ONLINE (05/15/2015) [-]
>If they touched little girls they deserve to have their arms broken.
I never denied that, nor will I deny that.

Also, that Pakistani /pol/ack is just having trouble accepting that Pakistani culture is retarded and tries to blame it all on Islam.

Aisha's age is not something I am going to debate about, simply because her actual age is quite irrelevant. The prophet did not put a minimum age on marriage, it would have been impossible to regulate, but he did put certain criteria that a woman needed to fulfil before she was allowed to get married, and their guardians could check for themselves whether those criteria was fulfilled. Aisha might have fulfilled them while she was 9, a weak western girl will most likely not.

And even if they did, rape is still not allowed, even raping your slaves is not allowed, and it would be quite impossible to qualify those girls as slave according to Islamic law anyway.
#85605 to #85604 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
>Aisha's age is not something I am going to debate about, simply because her actual age is quite irrelevant. The prophet did not put a minimum age on marriage, it would have been impossible to regulate, but he did put certain criteria that a woman needed to fulfil before she was allowed to get married, and their guardians could check for themselves whether those criteria was fulfilled. Aisha might have fulfilled them while she was 9, a weak western girl will most likely not.
Pussy ✓
Into marriage you go.
>And even if they did, rape is still not allowed, even raping your slaves is not allowed, and it would be quite impossible to qualify those girls as slave according to Islamic law anyway.
It's not rape, if they can't speak no in your language.
User avatar #85606 to #85605 - thekame ONLINE (05/15/2015) [-]
I am not going to debate your picture, if you want that you can start a new thread about islamic law and I can explain those verses without all too much problems.

>Pussy ✓
>Into marriage you go.
It is slightly more complicated than that.

>It's not rape, if they can't speak no in your language.
yes it is, and even if it wasn't it would still be unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman you are not married to.
User avatar #85607 to #85606 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
>I am not going to debate your picture, if you want that you can start a new thread about islamic law and I can explain those verses without all too much problems.
No need, I was a kebab and I know kebab laws.
>It is slightly more complicated than that.
Tits ✓
>yes it is, and even if it wasn't it would still be unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman you are not married to.
It's not if she's your, captive.
User avatar #85608 to #85607 - thekame ONLINE (05/15/2015) [-]
>It's not if she's your, captive.
True, but now there are two different claims.

>they are slaves
and
>you are allowed to rape your slaves
Both of these are wrong, they are not slaves, they could only be slaves if they were enslaved, and according to islamic ruling you are only allowed to enslave people you are at war with.

As for the claim you are allowed to rape your slaves, I will direct you to a quranic verse as well.
>But let them who find not [the means for] marriage abstain [from sexual relations] until Allah enriches them from His bounty. And those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your right hands possess - then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.
the important part being
>And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.
User avatar #85609 to #85608 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
> and according to islamic ruling you are only allowed to enslave people you are at war with.
>implying islam isn't at war against anything non-islamic
>And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.
>Implying anyone follows that
>Implying your prophet didn't rape women and behead their men
>implying that other muslims aren't following his example
Also, laws regarding rape in islam are strange to the point where the woman has no chance of winning anything.
User avatar #85610 to #85609 - thekame ONLINE (05/15/2015) [-]
>implying islam isn't at war against anything non-islamic
There are certainly people that claim this, but the Pakistani rape gangs can not possibly have believed it. After all it is a religious decree that you are not allowed to live in places that are at war with Islam, those man, by living in the UK, instead of living in a Muslim country make it quite obvious that they can not use that as a justification.

>Implying anyone follows that
It is irrelevant how many people follow it if we are discussing islamic law, the only thing actually relevant to that is the actual islamic texts and the opinion of scholars.

>Implying your prophet didn't rape women and behead their men
The prophet most definitely did sanction both slavery and beheadings, but only against people that were at war with him, he didn't just go to the Jews in medina before they betrayed him and enslave their woman, he didn't go to the Christians in najran and order people to behead them left and right.

As for your claim that he raped woman, that is simply factually wrong, he did have a slave woman, but she was a gift to him, and his relation with her was good and any intercourse they had was something they mutually agreed to.

>laws regarding rape in islam are strange to the point where the woman has no chance of winning anything.
Islamic rape laws are strange, but this is caused by the scholars failing to keep up with modern technology and refusing to acknowledge video and forensic research as proper proof.
User avatar #85612 to #85610 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
Also, remind me what Moors did in the invasion of Sicily, please do.
#85611 to #85610 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
> After all it is a religious decree that you are not allowed to live in places that are at war with Islam, those man, by living in the UK, instead of living in a Muslim country make it quite obvious that they can not use that as a justification.
It's justifiable since they are conquering the land.
>It is irrelevant how many people follow it if we are discussing islamic law, the only thing actually relevant to that is the actual islamic texts and the opinion of scholars.
Bukhari 62:13 - "We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated?" He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract (2) and recited to us: -- 'O you who believe ! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.' (5.87)"
The religion was made for a warlord to his slaves, not for common folk.
>The prophet most definitely did sanction both slavery and beheadings
waiting
>but only against people that were at war with him
There's the fun part. He was at war with every other pagan tribe in Arabia.
> he didn't just go to the Jews in medina before they betrayed him and enslave their woman
You know that I hate jews and I'm not going to defend them.
>he didn't go to the Christians in najran and order people to behead them left and right.
Remind me what happened to the vanquished tribes?
>As for your claim that he raped woman, that is simply factually wrong, he did have a slave woman, but she was a gift to him, and his relation with her was good and any intercourse they had was something they mutually agreed to.
Of course, after all, nothing means no to an Arab warlord after he sacked your village.
>Islamic rape laws are strange, but this is caused by the scholars failing to keep up with modern technology and refusing to acknowledge video and forensic research as proper proof.
I wonder why...
User avatar #85613 to #85611 - thekame ONLINE (05/15/2015) [-]
>t's justifiable since they are conquering the land.
Except they aren't conquering the land, nor are they even under command of someone that is planing to conquer the land.

I don't see how that is actually a relevant hadith to prove anything.

>There's the fun part. He was at war with every other pagan tribe in Arabia.
This is factually wrong, he went to war with plenty of them, but each of those wars can be explained and put in a context.

>Remind me what happened to the vanquished tribes?
The vanquished tribes started a war with the prophet and got exactly what they would have done to the muslims had they won. How does that have anything to do with not beheading people you are at peace with?

>Of course, after all, nothing means no to an Arab warlord after he sacked your village.
Mate, the only slave we know for a fact he slept with was a gift from the king of Egypt.

As for the the Moorish, I know about them conquering Spain, not Sicily. So if you meant Spain, than I can tell you that the conquest of Spain was considered one of the conquest which was best for the local population that got conquered at the time. The Christians as a general rule hardly got treated differently, though exceptions are sure to exist.

If you were talking about an actual conquest of Sicily, I fear I do not know enough about that subject.

And about your pic, any prominent Saudi cleric is bound to be a wahabi. I can deal with you using regular Sunni sources and scholarly opinions even though I am a Shiite because I feel enough of a brotherhood with Sunnis that I feel like I want to defend them, as for wahabis, I don't care what you say about them or what they say.
User avatar #85614 to #85613 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
>Except they aren't conquering the land, nor are they even under command of someone that is planing to conquer the land.
Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."
>This is factually wrong, he went to war with plenty of them, but each of those wars can be explained and put in a context.
Yes, because they were pagan.
>The vanquished tribes started a war with the prophet and got exactly what they would have done to the muslims had they won.
The muslims started the war by raiding merchant caravans, not the other way around.
>How does that have anything to do with not beheading people you are at peace with?
Muslims aren't even at peace with themselves.
>Mate, the only slave we know for a fact he slept with was a gift from the king of Egypt.
Oh I'm sorry, culturally enriched wives.
>So if you meant Spain, than I can tell you that the conquest of Spain was considered one of the conquest which was best for the local population that got conquered at the time.
Not a decade went by without a conflict and muslims were raiding non-muslims non-stop and taking slaves.
10/10
>Christians as a general rule hardly got treated differently
Smaller churches, bigger tax, no horse riding, no weapons, no wearing green, etc.
User avatar #85619 to #85614 - thekame ONLINE (05/15/2015) [-]
>Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."
I know this hadith, and I also know that if you were to put it here in the original Arabic, it becomes clear that the subject does not refer to all people like the translation suggest but rather to a "them", aka a specific and very concrete group of people.

>Yes, because they were pagan.
I am aware that any person that believes this will always just claim that any reason I give them will just by woven away as fabricated. So I am just going to ignore them.

>The muslims started the war by raiding merchant caravans, not the other way around.
The Muslims raided caravans of Quraish, you know, the people that banished the Muslims before the Muslims had even done any violent act against them. It might be interesting to note that the caravans they actually raided were the ones that had the seized goods that belonged to the Muslims that the Meccans were planning to sell.

>Muslims aren't even at peace with themselves.
Neither are Christians, or pagans, that statement doesn't extend in meaning so that the Muslims are also at war with the British.

>Not a decade went by without a conflict and muslims were raiding non-muslims non-stop and taking slaves.
>10/10
That's what war is, it is neither good or really justifiably but it is no different from any other large scale invasion of the time, it was in fact better than most large scale invasions of the time.

Unless you are referring to the barbary pirates, in which case I will refer you to the fact that those people were pirates, they did it for profit.

>Smaller churches, bigger tax, no horse riding, no weapons, no wearing green, etc.
Do you understand what hardly means? I am well aware of many of the discriminatory politics the ummayiden, but by far those were much more liveable conditions than most minority religions had to deal with in any other place of the world.

>Oh I'm sorry, culturally enriched wives.
I do not like the degenerative tone you take towards her.
User avatar #85620 to #85619 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
>I know this hadith, and I also know that if you were to put it here in the original Arabic, it becomes clear that the subject does not refer to all people like the translation suggest but rather to a "them", aka a specific and very concrete group of people.
I know who they are, they are people like me, unwilling to bow down to an Arabic god.
>I am aware that any person that believes this will always just claim that any reason I give them will just by woven away as fabricated. So I am just going to ignore them.
Did he not hate them, did he not refuse to negotiate with them, did he not raid their caravans? What do you think would happen?
>The Muslims raided caravans of Quraish, you know, the people that banished the Muslims before the Muslims had even done any violent act against them.
They banished them because they were treating the pagan culture and people with no respect.
> It might be interesting to note that the caravans they actually raided were the ones that had the seized goods that belonged to the Muslims that the Meccans were planning to sell.
They raided all caravans, and I doubt any historical revisionism from your side could change that.
>Neither are Christians, or pagans,
But at least we don't blow our fellow edgelord up for having the wrong edgyness.
> that statement doesn't extend in meaning so that the Muslims are also at war with the British.
What part of making war with non-muslims until they submit to islam you don't understand?
>That's what war is, it is neither good or really justifiably but it is no different from any other large scale invasion of the time, it was in fact better than most large scale invasions of the time.
Yes, damn right. Don't Europeans just love seeing their women being driven off to be "wives" to shitskins.
>Unless you are referring to the barbary pirates, in which case I will refer you to the fact that those people were pirates, they did it for profit.
Not only them, but the Moors and the Ottomans did it as well, most of the Ottoman fleet was in a fact a raiding fleet full of pirates.
>Do you understand what hardly means? I am well aware of many of the discriminatory politics the ummayiden, but by far those were much more liveable conditions than most minority religions had to deal with in any other place of the world.
Genghis Khan never killed anyone because of his religion.
>I do not like the degenerative tone you take towards her.
Gulturly enriched
User avatar #85621 to #85620 - thekame ONLINE (05/15/2015) [-]
>I know who they are, they are people like me, unwilling to bow down to an Arabic god.
No, actually they were the people of Mecca who tortured and banished the Muslims . Those are two things you haven't done yet, though I don't doubt you want to do at least one of them the banishing one .
>They banished them because they were treating the pagan culture and people with no respect.
Not really, most hadith and verses that people claim talk about the pagans whit no respect are medinan, which is after they got banished. The only real reason they got banished and tortured is because the elite of Mecca wanted to keep the status quo in their city.

>They raided all caravans, and I doubt any historical revisionism from your side could change that.
They were raiding all caravan from Mecca, because they were at war with Mecca, I never denied this. I only pointed out that in this raiding they got back their property.

>Don't Europeans just love seeing their women being driven off to be "wives" to shitskins.
I doubt they do, yet that is exactly what happens in any invasion. As far as the invasion of Spain the actual amount that this happened though was much less than it other invasions.

>Genghis Khan never killed anyone because of his religion.
Genghis Khan is an exception in that he just massacred anyone, that is hardly better.
User avatar #85622 to #85621 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
>No, actually they were the people of Mecca who tortured and banished the Muslims . Those are two things you haven't done yet, though I don't doubt you want to do at least one of them
History is written by the victor, and I see no torture in Ibn Ishaq hadiths.
>Not really, most hadith and verses that people claim talk about the pagans whit no respect are medinan, which is after they got banished. The only real reason they got banished and tortured is because the elite of Mecca wanted to keep the status quo in their city.
Muhamed was allowed to negotiate with the Meccans with his uncle about peace and understanding, he refused and insulted the Meccans.
>They were raiding all caravan from Mecca, because they were at war with Mecca, I never denied this. I only pointed out that in this raiding they got back their property.
Yes, and a few raisins too.
>As far as the invasion of Spain the actual amount that this happened though was much less than it other invasions.
I very much doubt so, the Spanish hated your guts for what you did and they have a coat of arms in a region of Spain with muslim heads on pikes.
>that is hardly better.
But still is.
User avatar #85557 to #85556 - thekame ONLINE (05/14/2015) [-]
70*
User avatar #85558 to #85557 - thekame ONLINE (05/14/2015) [-]
btw, I know the pakistanis aren't the only muslim group in britain, but they are the largest group, and they are the ones know for the rape gangs, so I can't imagine more that a doubling of that number.
#85553 to #85550 - thekame ONLINE (05/14/2015) [-]
Couldn't this correlation just be explained away by those being Britain's urban centre's?  It certainly sounds like a much more logical explanation.
Couldn't this correlation just be explained away by those being Britain's urban centre's? It certainly sounds like a much more logical explanation.
User avatar #85587 to #85553 - lulzforalpsplane (05/15/2015) [-]
oh my god! immigrants, especially muslims and arabs tend to live in urban centers? jee wiz!
User avatar #85592 to #85587 - thekame ONLINE (05/15/2015) [-]
way to miss the point. Look closer at the maps, the map of population density has a much higher similarity to the rape map than the Muslim immigration one has.
User avatar #85623 to #85592 - lulzforalpsplane (05/15/2015) [-]
Are you telling me that Muslims are found in more urban areas, ones that you could say maybe have.. a higher population density. jee wiz!
User avatar #85570 to #85553 - joshlol (05/15/2015) [-]
he's a /pol/ browsing low-iq retard

90% of /pol/ users are incapable of carrying out an actual argument, and just parrot what /pol/ says into an echo-chamber to feel like they are right
User avatar #85636 to #85570 - youregaylol (05/16/2015) [-]
saying others have no arguments by calling them names, classic joshlol

i bet you cried when the dems lost the midterms
User avatar #85645 to #85636 - joshlol (05/16/2015) [-]
I guess it's a good thing for you that you're not betting money then
User avatar #85582 to #85570 - lulzforalpsplane (05/15/2015) [-]
*50%. Pls stop being butthurt.
User avatar #85583 to #85582 - joshlol (05/15/2015) [-]
I'm not butthurt, you faggots are fucking hilarious

User avatar #85584 to #85583 - lulzforalpsplane (05/15/2015) [-]
>you faggots
>pol
Alright.
User avatar #85574 to #85570 - joshlol (05/15/2015) [-]
>>#85573,
>getting your sense of self worth from your success rate with women (I think it's a safe assumption any woman you've been with is trash)

and not that it's any of your concern but I have touched women : \

User avatar #85576 to #85574 - joshlol (05/15/2015) [-]
>>#85575,
>doesn't have anything of worth to say
>mindlessly regurgitates "cuck" without even knowing what it means

thanks for further confirming that every /pol/ user is a hivemind mouth-breather

you couldn't hurt my feelings if you tried your absolute best, 10 minutes from now I won't remember this conversation
User avatar #85637 to #85576 - youregaylol (05/16/2015) [-]
"10 minutes from now I won't remember this conversation"

adhd w/ a mix of autism, no suprise
User avatar #85644 to #85637 - joshlol (05/16/2015) [-]
/pol/ browsing shitstain considers himself qualified to give me a diagnosis through the internet based on a few comments?

nice

keep parroting back 4chan buzzwords bro

User avatar #85586 to #85576 - lulzforalpsplane (05/15/2015) [-]
>I argued with a person who lives in Bosnia and browses /pol/
>this must be every /pol/ member
lol you are adorable in your 3rd grade thinking.
User avatar #85588 to #85586 - joshlol (05/15/2015) [-]
I thought he was Canadian
User avatar #85589 to #85588 - lulzforalpsplane (05/15/2015) [-]
He lives in Bosnia.
User avatar #85578 to #85576 - joshlol (05/15/2015) [-]
>>#85577,
>tfw /pol/ users lack basic creative traits and everything they say is a buzzword they learned from a meme website
User avatar #85580 to #85578 - joshlol (05/15/2015) [-]
>>#85579,
Don't you have le happy merchant meme's to be posting?
#85579 to #85578 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
Damn, you are worse than I imagined. Don't worry josh, your death will be slow and painful.
User avatar #85577 to #85576 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
What do I have to say to a guy who stated nothing valuable in the first place.
>10 minutes from now I won't remember this conversation
Do I bring back bad memories cuck?
User avatar #85575 to #85574 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
Yes, when they were not looking.
You base every argument against me on how we hurt your little beta cuck feelings.
Go fap to ponies, or whatever you degenerates do.
User avatar #85573 to #85570 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
>said the guy who hasn't touched a woman
Please give me your home address.
User avatar #85566 to #85553 - schnizel (05/15/2015) [-]
I know you are defending muzzies here but don't throw in shit into the argument.
#85626 to #85566 - rotherham (05/15/2015) [-]
Just fucking go away mate.
User avatar #85641 to #85626 - schnizel (05/16/2015) [-]
Suck my dick, mate.
#85646 to #85641 - rotherham (05/16/2015) [-]
Get it out then.
User avatar #85650 to #85646 - schnizel (05/16/2015) [-]
will do
User avatar #85554 to #85526 - thekame ONLINE (05/14/2015) [-]
All of those links are talking about Muslim rape gangs, but it appears to me that they are much more Pakistani rape gangs. Or do we also call the Italian Mafia that formed in the USA the Catholic Mafia?

Now that we are talking about the Italian Mafia, I specifically remember that they also dealt prostitution of minors. It is almost like gang forming is a common occurrence among high density, poor communities and those gangs will commit a shit ton of crimes.

Also, why are people acting like the reasons those crimes went uncharged is because the police was being afraid of being called racist? The police is far from some kind of left wing institution, and back when those gangs were first discovered I do not think there was any movement like that. Isn't there a much more common explanation in simple corruption on the part of the police?

Of course I might be wrong, I don't actually follow British news that much.
User avatar #85593 to #85565 - thekame ONLINE (05/15/2015) [-]
This doesn't actually answer any of my questions.
User avatar #85543 to #85526 - Shiny (05/14/2015) [-]
Child prostitution isn't victimization?

The Islamic fundies can have the UK, it's clear the British aren't deserving of it
User avatar #85539 to #85526 - redandgreen (05/14/2015) [-]
It's appalling really. The police seemed to have been too afraid of being called racist to prosecute people. The idea that they overlooked it because they thought the children were willing prostitutes is disgusting as well.
Some Police and social workers should probably go to Jail as well as the attackers.

I wonder if I'll be allowed to criticise Police like that after the Tories change the law..
User avatar #85590 to #85539 - lulzforalpsplane (05/15/2015) [-]
Because progressive leaders will not give you more islamic gang-rapes through wonderful immigration right?
User avatar #85531 to #85526 - redandgreen (05/14/2015) [-]
It's not legal.
User avatar #85532 to #85531 - schnizel (05/14/2015) [-]
Might makes right.
User avatar #85527 to #85526 - britbong (05/14/2015) [-]
Labour really is disgusting
User avatar #85528 to #85527 - schnizel (05/14/2015) [-]
Give me one good reason why they all should not have pikes put up their assholes?
User avatar #85530 to #85528 - britbong (05/14/2015) [-]
I would but I can't
User avatar #85537 to #85536 - schnizel (05/14/2015) [-]
I know, but fire purifies.
#85520 - thekame ONLINE (05/14/2015) [-]
Move aside, best borders coming through.

Croatia en Slovenia are one nation because I couldn't be bothered to make another colour
same goes for the Celtic union
I like painting maps
User avatar #85548 to #85520 - marinepenguin (05/14/2015) [-]
This is actually pretty interesting. Nice effort put into this. Germanic state would probably be the most powerful in this situation, much like today.

Is all of Africa and the middle east one nation or was this just European states?
#85549 to #85548 - thekame ONLINE (05/14/2015) [-]
All the arab countries are one nations. If I were to put in a little more effort I would have given the Tuareg and the Kurds their own state.
User avatar #85551 to #85549 - marinepenguin (05/14/2015) [-]
I'm not sure that would work as well. I would imagine civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis fairly often. And African Muslims usually don't seem to get along with Arab Muslims. If such a state did exist I can't imagine that it would be stable. I agree that the Kurds should have their own state as well.
User avatar #85552 to #85551 - thekame ONLINE (05/14/2015) [-]
>I would imagine civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis fairly often
What you imagine might happen, it depends on the circumstances. If it was an Arab state founded by a pan Arab movement, sectarian tensions wouldn't be a particular big concern, the feeling of Arab nationalism would trump the feeling of sectarianism. Like it does in turkey.

> And African Muslims usually don't seem to get along with Arab Muslims
Which is why I said the Tuareg should get their own state.
User avatar #85522 to #85520 - kanadetenshi (05/14/2015) [-]
tfw Wales gets independence before Scotland.
User avatar #85524 to #85522 - thekame ONLINE (05/14/2015) [-]
tbh people in Wales actually have a separate identity that involves more than wearing a skirt.
User avatar #85529 to #85524 - britbong (05/14/2015) [-]
Wales is pretty nice tbh
User avatar #85515 - redandgreen (05/14/2015) [-]
“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',”

Any thoughts on this quote from the British Prime Minister?
User avatar #85521 to #85515 - kanadetenshi (05/14/2015) [-]
He wants to ban free speech basically. He's been trying to do that in his last term but the Lib Dems kept vetoeing it. While i find extremists trying to rally people distasteful this is just going to be "counter-terrorist" scaremongering and limit the freedom of the individual.
User avatar #85525 to #85521 - britbong (05/14/2015) [-]
This

I'm happy the tories got back in over Labour but the Lib Dems and UKIP were the only parties promising to protect civil rights
User avatar #85518 to #85515 - schnizel (05/14/2015) [-]
It means people have the same mentality as you.
User avatar #85517 to #85515 - britbong (05/14/2015) [-]
He could mean what he says (That it will be used to stop those sharia law marches), but it could easily be interpretted as something very 1984ish.

I guess we'll have to see
User avatar #85519 to #85517 - redandgreen (05/14/2015) [-]
It sounds like they want to further restrict freedom of speech.
User avatar #85523 to #85519 - britbong (05/14/2015) [-]
Probably because they do

Although they say it's to stop Choudary
User avatar #85533 to #85523 - redandgreen (05/14/2015) [-]
Choudary should be allowed to say whatever stupid crap he wants. At least then it can be argued and isn't just driven underground.
User avatar #85535 to #85533 - britbong (05/14/2015) [-]
I agree, it's just scaremongering that the population usually buys
User avatar #85514 - schnizel (05/14/2015) [-]
https://youtube.com/devicesupport
https://youtube.com/devicesupport
https://youtube.com/devicesupport
User avatar #85504 - drastronomy ONLINE (05/14/2015) [-]
www.funnyjunk.com/Reminds+me+of+imitation+ga+y+me/funny-pictures/5545260/8#8

Anyone want to take part in an argument?

AMA i can back up my claim to any and all extents
User avatar #85505 to #85504 - schnizel (05/14/2015) [-]
Don't, it's a waste of time.
User avatar #85506 to #85505 - drastronomy ONLINE (05/14/2015) [-]
no debate is a waste
User avatar #85507 to #85506 - schnizel (05/14/2015) [-]
Trust me it is, every time you will win a phyric victory.
User avatar #85508 to #85507 - drastronomy ONLINE (05/14/2015) [-]
The matter of victory or defeat is irrelevant, i take it as a venue of self improvement with regards to language, dialectic and argumentation.
User avatar #85509 to #85508 - schnizel (05/14/2015) [-]
True, but you need to win more than loose.
User avatar #85510 to #85509 - drastronomy ONLINE (05/14/2015) [-]
Winning an argument is nigh impossible due to the inherent hubris of most people.
User avatar #85511 to #85510 - schnizel (05/14/2015) [-]
true.
#85496 - Shiny (05/14/2015) [-]
I recently became aware of the term "brocialist".

Stupid goddamn what the fucking fuck is this postmodern babble
User avatar #85503 to #85496 - kanadetenshi (05/14/2015) [-]
Brocialism is a brocial and broconomic system characterized by brocial ownership of the means of broduction and co-operative management of the broconomy as well as a brolitical theory. They start with turning private gyms and protein stores into a workers brommunity so they can start mirrin before they smash capitalism with their gains.
User avatar #85542 to #85503 - Shiny (05/14/2015) [-]
That makes more objective sense than the crap I read on "SJWiki".
#85497 to #85496 - schnizel (05/14/2015) [-]
Please die.
With hate, schnizel.
#85490 - anon (05/14/2015) [-]
My favorite part of history class was learning about the Transatlantic States' Rights Trade
#85481 - anon (05/14/2015) [-]
World leader heights are kind of neat.

Here's Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto 5'7, flanked by Barack Obama 6'1, and Stephen Harper 6'2.
User avatar #85485 to #85481 - damnjuden (05/14/2015) [-]
>Harper
>Harp
I'd complain about him being a fucking paddy, but he sang well for Israel !
https://youtube.com/devicesupport
User avatar #85484 to #85481 - akkere (05/14/2015) [-]
I always wondered if the most common consequence to being a short world leader is nearly everyone who meets you in person thinks "You're a lot taller on television"
User avatar #85483 to #85481 - lulzforalpsplane (05/14/2015) [-]
Stephen Harper based nigga. Well out of the options we have, I bet he is even more conservative in reality but he just can't say it
#85476 - anon (05/13/2015) [-]
Free speech was a mistake.
User avatar #85495 to #85476 - marinepenguin (05/14/2015) [-]
That was hilarious.
User avatar #85471 - schnizel (05/13/2015) [-]
https://youtube.com/devicesupport
Music thread
#85463 - pebar (05/13/2015) [-]
It looks like people are trying to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Tubman
User avatar #85468 to #85463 - kanadetenshi (05/13/2015) [-]
We should try to get Ron Paul on fiat currency for full out irony.
User avatar #85467 to #85463 - eight (05/13/2015) [-]
Cool.

They could make her head a little smaller though.
User avatar #85472 to #85467 - lulzforalpsplane (05/13/2015) [-]
lol no

Bills should be reserved for people of government authority and power, especially Prime Ministers. Ones that were liked.
User avatar #85479 to #85472 - eight (05/13/2015) [-]
Errrm...what? Why? Does it really matter who's picture is on a bill?

She's an important figure in America, she deserves recognition for that. If that means putting her on a bill, then great for her legacy. There's plenty of American heroes that deserve the spot, not all of them are presidents or government related officials.
#85498 to #85479 - anon (05/14/2015) [-]
Like Sacagawea.
User avatar #85486 to #85482 - eight (05/14/2015) [-]
What's funny? And what is the objection?

Where is it written that only important political/government authorities should be recognized? Why should that be the case?

And wouldn't the founding fathers of America most likely preferred that glorification of government leaders was replaced with the glorification of any important figures in the nations history?
User avatar #85492 to #85486 - youregaylol (05/14/2015) [-]
>paving the way for jay z and beyonce to be on us currency in 2050

if you're in my country pls leave thnx
User avatar #85493 to #85492 - eight (05/14/2015) [-]
You consider Jay Z and Beyonce important?

Best joke I've heard all week.
User avatar #85494 to #85493 - youregaylol (05/14/2015) [-]
did people feel that harriet was important in her day? or did she truly spike in fame and admiration during the progressive movement of the late 1950's and 1960's, put on a pedal stool by a new generation of revisionist academics?

leftists are always so quick to dismiss the potential results of their actions while ignoring past precedent

a better comparison would be the liberal obsession with john lennon, he has already attracted a strong cult of personality despite his documented history as a degenerate wife beating drug addict, it wouldn't be out of the question for a bunch of sociology students to push for a nationwide campaign for him to be on the 50 dollar bill in 2060 to "commemorate his massive contribution to the cultural revolution"
User avatar #85512 to #85494 - eight (05/14/2015) [-]
"did people feel that harriet was important in her day? or did she truly spike in fame and admiration during the progressive movement of the late 1950's and 1960's, put on a pedal stool by a new generation of revisionist academics? "

Does it matter? The fact is, we recognize that she is important to our nations history, now. She's worth learning about. I mean, was Edgar Allen Poe all that important during his time? Not so much, he died depressed and poor, much like he spent the majority of his life. But now he's considered a jewel to American literature and rightly so.

We don't always recognize greatness immediately. Sometimes it takes time.

"a better comparison would be the liberal obsession with john lennon, he has already attracted a strong cult of personality despite his documented history as a degenerate wife beating drug addict, it wouldn't be out of the question for a bunch of sociology students to push for a nationwide campaign for him to be on the 50 dollar bill in 2060 to "commemorate his massive contribution to the cultural revolution" "

Are you really suggesting that the people on our current bills are not flawed in some way? Some of them, cough, Andrew Jackson, cough, were pretty terrible individuals. But that doesn't matter, because their impact on our history and how they benefited the nation is what's significant.

And what is with this constant leftist attack nonsense? Surely, you're more mannered than that.
User avatar #85516 to #85512 - youregaylol (05/14/2015) [-]
"The fact is, we recognize that John Lennon is important to our nations history, now. He's worth learning about. I mean, was Edgar Allen Poe all that important during his time? Not so much, he died depressed and poor, much like he spent the majority of his life. But now he's considered a jewel to American literature and rightly so."-leftist person in 2050

Every person on this earth has flaws, don't distort the argument into me claiming that those individual on our currency were angels. The issue is are they worthy of having their likeness on our currency based upon their leadership roles in this country, the positive effect they had in their leadership roles, the overall contributions they provided to the nation, and their official positions.

It speaks volumes that the only non US president on the dollar is Benjamin Franklin, and if you honestly put Harriet on the same level as Benjamin in regards to the contributions to this nation I question your grasp on US history. The fact is if you lower the bar for Harriet (who im convinced is only being put forward because shes a notable AA wymn whose gonna break da ebil white patriarchy currency standards) you open the door for hundreds of other controversial candidates.

And I call a duck a duck, if you don't like the term leftist I suggest you analyze why that is.
User avatar #85540 to #85516 - eight (05/14/2015) [-]
""The fact is, we recognize that John Lennon is important to our nations history, now. He's worth learning about. I mean, was Edgar Allen Poe all that important during his time? Not so much, he died depressed and poor, much like he spent the majority of his life. But now he's considered a jewel to American literature and rightly so."-leftist person in 2050 :"

If the people think John Lennon is worthy of being placed on the bill, than why not? Of course, he wasn't even American...so what a shit analogy.

"Every person on this earth has flaws, don't distort the argument into me claiming that those individual on our currency were angels. The issue is are they worthy of having their likeness on our currency based upon their leadership roles in this country, the positive effect they had in their leadership roles, the overall contributions they provided to the nation, and their official positions. "

And you don't think Harriet Tubman played a significant role in this countries history by helping people flee enslavement? That's not exactly a simple donation to charity. It's a pretty great, selfless act.

Position should never matter. You can be in a high position and offer nothing significant. You can be in a low position and offer great things. You can have no position and still be great.

Contributions is all that should matter.

"It speaks volumes that the only non US president on the dollar is Benjamin Franklin, and if you honestly put Harriet on the same level as Benjamin in regards to the contributions to this nation I question your grasp on US history. The fact is if you lower the bar for Harriet (who im convinced is only being put forward because shes a notable AA wymn whose gonna break da ebil white patriarchy currency standards) you open the door for hundreds of other controversial candidates. "

It's a piece of cloth. The world isn't going to come crashing down just because somebody "less deserving" than another gets recognition for the good things they've done.

The current portraits have had their day. Maybe it's time to put different faces on the money. There's plenty of other American heroes deserving of the recognition.

Maybe we should put all sorts of American heroes on the bills interchangeably (much like they did with the Gold dollar), so that no one historical figure gets more recognition than another. Now that's something the founding fathers would have likely embraced.

It's not a simple matter of calling someone leftist. It's the way you use the word, as if they were a plague on society. It screams immaturity.
User avatar #85541 to #85540 - youregaylol (05/14/2015) [-]
>is okay with muscians getting put on us currency
>couldn't even imagine non americans being born on us currency

you cant tear down long standing norms and expect other norms to be sacred

there are literally millions of selfless acts in us history, still doesnt mean that they deserve to be on us currency

in the case of currency, position does matter
as i said the only case where it didn't was Benjamin Franklin a founding father whose actions helped create this country

you're moving the goal posts, it "not destroying the world" doesn't mean anything
if you legalize bestiality it wouldn't destroy the world, so why not legalize beastiality

shit logic

change for the sake of change is cancer

speaking for the founding fathers is a bit much, id rather just stick with tradition
i know leftists hate anything being sacred or honored, but there are some things that should remain the same so we all have something to hold on too.

i fully believe leftism is a plague on society, couldn't put it in better words
i personally find your reasoning for changing the currency very immature and illogical, so you'll forgive me if i dont care what you think of my beliefs
#85460 - dehumanizer (05/13/2015) [-]
cant wait to see how the kikes will try to shit on him now
#85469 to #85460 - syrianassassinsoul (05/13/2015) [-]
so the prophecy are true?   
   
both christians and Muslims gonna stand against Israel?
so the prophecy are true?

both christians and Muslims gonna stand against Israel?
#85453 - anon (05/13/2015) [-]
https://youtube.com/devicesupport

Capitalism's greatest triumph.
#85452 - anon (05/13/2015) [-]
>Europoors will defend public intoxication
User avatar #85450 - feelythefeel (05/13/2015) [-]
My understanding of the "race problem" in America is that it's largely perpetuated by liberals, democrats, social marxists, etc etc. Whether intentional or not, they do this through culturally infanticizing minorities (Especially blacks), training them to act like victims instead of agents of their own destiny, so to speak.

At no point are many blacks in America sufficiently compelled to be self sufficient. And why would they be when they're given enough welfare and programs to live in relative comfort? And why would they be grateful when they're taught that none of their problems are actually their fault, and instead are the fault of "whitey"?

In short, modern racial policy in America has created a culture of infantilization and dependence, and at the same time open defiance, in modern American minorities.

Am I on the right track, Ameriburgers?
User avatar #85465 to #85450 - akkere (05/13/2015) [-]
It wouldn't be too far off. The biggest problem that's faced with the black community is getting past the "thug culture" that's manifested over the past few decades, which produces other problematic mindsets to those it influences. Some black families have chosen to combat this with having a more prominent involvement; a lot of STEM-related programs for high school minorities and such have popped up it seems, with scholarship opportunities only if you go through the program's learning activities, rather than just freely given. For something so beneficial to the minority community, not a lot of liberals seem to be push for funding them or even advertising them as much as they choose to fund other things.
User avatar #85461 to #85450 - marinepenguin (05/13/2015) [-]
Pretty much.
#85459 to #85450 - anon (05/13/2015) [-]
I've never heard cockroach infested apartments where you have to worry constantly about getting shot or robbed as relative comfort before, but alright.
User avatar #85466 to #85459 - feelythefeel (05/13/2015) [-]
Compared to how people who produce and provide nothing for society should live.
#85500 to #85466 - anon (05/14/2015) [-]
And what exactly do you produce for our society that makes you so valuable to the community?
User avatar #85562 to #85500 - feelythefeel (05/15/2015) [-]
I'm still in school.
User avatar #85462 to #85459 - marinepenguin (05/13/2015) [-]
I've been inside the low income housing that they just built a block away which now house the only 3 black families in my whole town who moved here right after they finished and they're nicer then my parents house.

Plus in the garages of those houses are Camaros, Mustangs, and a few BMWs and even an Audi. These people have nice cars even though they live supposedly "low-income" housing.
#85499 to #85462 - anon (05/14/2015) [-]
Where do you live? I tried low income housing. Moved out after my neighbor lady got stabbed to death in a robbery in the parking lot. Also 90% of the tenets had jobs. Sometimes multiple jobs. Low income jobs like fast food, but they were employed.
User avatar #85513 to #85499 - marinepenguin (05/14/2015) [-]
I live in the rural midwest. My town is probably more middle class. I'm not saying these people just don't work at all, I'm just saying that they seem to be living fairly comfortably to have earned this housing meant for people who are struggling and need help.
User avatar #85473 to #85462 - lulzforalpsplane (05/13/2015) [-]
Poor people in America practically doesn't exist. The title of poor is reserved for 10% of the people claiming to be poor and that is by Western standard. Literally 0.001% of Americans are African-tier poor.
User avatar #85474 to #85473 - marinepenguin (05/13/2015) [-]
That isn't the point though. The point is that these lower class American citizens are owning things that would normally be indicative of a more upper middle class lifestyle, yet they still receive benefits that most others are unable to get, usually because they're a minority or they feed off the welfare system.

Saying "there are no poor people in western societies when compared to undeveloped third world countries" is just derailing the conversation. We're talking about US issues. Not starving Africans.
User avatar #85451 to #85450 - lulzforalpsplane (05/13/2015) [-]
Of course, Canaburger.
 Friends (0)