Shut up, it's only your fault!

You had one job.. ( to put it in order ). Cool stuff none the less.

And #2 is Jack Nicholson in The Shinning http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/ ( hope I'm not wrong )

http://i.imgur.com/Vhd64MV.jpg

Man, it is a simplistic view of matters and yes it is viewed from one side (people good - government bad). But, in my opinion this is not essential to what I wanted to bring to light, these are only unimportant details.

My questions to you are:
- Do you feel you matter in today's society ?
- Do you feel your rights are taken away, while taxes increase, with each new group of people put in place to "represent you" ?
- Do you feel your money (you pay in the form of taxes) go towards what you want ?

* When I say you I mean the majority, which voice should be heard, acknowledged and represented

Also do you feel elections offer you a real alternative, a real choice ?

What you do is correct spelling mistakes and and deny the validity of the idea expressed by that, by judging the packaging. I feel you do this a lot, it is your preset way of thinking.

Maybe, but why not debunk what's wrong with it, point by point and why.

I myself feel we have no freedom and it's only an illusion electing new people from time to time. They serve the same interests and don't care what we actually want.

There is a photoshop category

I really like the last photo

Yes that's pretty much it. Yes, also others could share things in your lasagna category, but you would own it, set rules, filter comments, delete posts, etc

That's the thing, I'm not doing anything. If someone is passionate about a topic and would like to share I could make some room for them to express themselves

That's actually what made me post this.

Say we have a person passionate about food/cooking willing to manage a food category. The category would function just like any other category, it's not like that person would share only what he/she cooked last night. But take in interesting stuff from anyone and decide if they are worth it or not, follow discussion etc..

But come to think about it, someone with a hobby researching and passionate about it, would probably not be here, let alone share information and knowledge with us.

I'm positive she is underage by the looks of her. I'm not going to argue her age here. Also a joke is a joke even if she is and I understand that. But to me she is obviously a kid and to make sexual jokes is weird.

(I have also seen the video of here and that was more telling)

So you have been looking at 10 of these videos and call them dumb ?..

Curiosity and challenge, that's what kids, youngsters do. I'm sure we all did quite a few dumb things in our day.

She's a kid, why they need for sexual references in your comments ??

At 5:33 your (our) freedom perfectly explained

If it only things would be that simple.. First of all there are lots of types of murder. Self defense, accidental, 1st degree, 2nd degree etc

So I understand the kid in the preview thumb is the killer. Wow, mind bugging.

It's just weird to me that so many people prefer living in dark ages and burn witches alive. We have come such a long way but fail to see further than 1 inch ahead of us. Things like death punishment is cheaper than life in prison or they gets 3 meals a day from my money etc are extremely narrow views.

You haven't seen a homeless person before, have you ? They usually get cigarets from passersby, usually get a cigarette from someone that is already smoking it..

If you have no idea how someone can end up on the streets I have one example for you. In 1st and 2nd school years (7-8 years old) I had a class mate. One day his mother took him and his younger brother on a metro/subway trip to a distant station. Well she left him there and went back home only with the younger one. So he ended up sleeping on our schools backyard, in the grass and on open sky for sometime.

He spent at least a few months on the streets before he went to his grandmother months later in the coutryside and from there he managed to make a new life for himself.

Even worse, he seems to keep fighting for the time being, but I'm sure we all know people that have given up on life altogether

Why ?

Funny because there have been only 3 of them made and all of them have been sold already

Harlem: http://www.harlem-13-gigapixels.com/
Vienna Austria: http://photoartkalmar.com/Photoart%20Kalmar%20high…
and I'm sure there are more ..

Paris: http://www.paris-26-gigapixels.com/index-en.html

Works just fine for me on mine

So, what's up with the uncalled for, blunt hate for this black lady ? "I'm sure she's on welfair" says the guy who can't spell 2 consecutive words.

"I have never seen anybody really debate this issue on the streets"

You don't say..
Is anything above common understanding a subject for the extremists trying to divide the world ?

Tea break. Ain't you some classy bastards over there ?..

Indeed, religion and politics should not coexist, religion and state should not coexist, religion and tax-exemption should not coexist.

Yes religion stayed in the path of science development, religion is still standing in its path and in the path of human development, in the name of religion a lot of atrocities and crimes where committed, but God didn't do any of them. Just humans in the name of the God did.

But did religion do more bad than good ?

Now my head hurts, literally :)

If you think at God as the one that created the world in 7 days than God and science cannot coexist, but if you think at God as something that goes beyond the bible and churches and beyond the one that judges our morality and beyond heaven and hell and beyond everything else I see no problem.

I see no problem in being a scientist and believing in God. On the other hand believing the world was created 6000 years ago than you may run into some problems.

Religion is how people were able to give a physical and tangible meaning to the idea of God, but just as science progresses, religion should learn to make another big step and learn to embrace science in order to come with a better "embodiment" of God. Religion should be adaptable.

This is a vast and interesting topic. I'll add this article that should give a background to this post: http://guardian.co.uk/science/2012/…

So the question is if science and religion can coexist.

To put together a semi-pertinent answer will probably take a lifetime of study, but my opinion is that (Christian) religion as it is viewed and preached now and science cannot coexist. Because religion stands for some fixed ideas that have been proved wrong by science. And throughout history science had to fight religion because of these fixed ideas.

BUT I do believe that God and science can coexist, they don't exclude one another and never will, there will be nothing science will demonstrate that will exclude God.

Please learn to you the replay button

On top is how the governments deal with the situation. Instead of offering understanding and a breath of air they kick us right in the nuts.

The banking system is the one that triggered this situation. Did anyone pay for it from the banking system ? Did anyone go to jail for it ? Is the banking system more transparent ? I think not. Instead all the load is moved to out shoulders.

And only recently they decided that confiscating private property is all right. Just tested this in Cyprus and noone seemed to complain. So a bank fucks up, money is missing, but none from the bank is punished or from banking regulatory system, yet you confiscate peoples earnings ? This is just a slap in the face. And I'd say not only in the face of the ones losing money but in the face of all of us.

niggaface please..

In the world there's SO much nonsense we take for truth and hang on to like it's our last breath of air. And there's also groups of people profiting of this nonsense to the end of it.

It's simple, gay people are just people. They do everything as everyone else, just fall in love with persons of same sex.

Just like you don't see black or asian people or tall or short people as anything else than just people. You don't go "hey look a tall guy, I don't hate him, but don't like seeing him next to me and my family"

Perfect, but goes for everyone not gays. Also gays are not a special kind of human looking to clothes bang in public. Or at least not more or less than any other person.

I also feel there's laws against indecent exposure and what not.

To make you feel what I (you) say I'll do this:

Man, I have no problem with black people, I'm not against them, but I wouldn't want o see them on the streets and have to explain my kids what's up with them.

Well then.. how do you explain your kids when they see 2 opposite sex teens or persons kissing each other in public ? Then the same way you explain your kids when it's same sex partners. Trust me they will be cool with it understand it just as if it's a normal thing. See them as humans and not as gays. Are you bothered by 2 people kissing in public around your kids ? Yes/No doesn't matter what your take is. Apply the same on gays. Kids will see it as people and will have no problem with it.

Or are you afraid your kids will be infested by the gayness ?

Makes you realize how amazing the human body really is

My quick question is what if they don't catch anyone ?

And also what more regulation and restrictions of civil liberties will follow ?

Freddy Mercury, among others

I have my doubts.

Now I'm scared. And I'm scared because this is so easy to achieve.

This is a deep and philosophical topic, what triggers terrorist attack and what can be done against it. But think of the school shootings, they are happening more and more often and there's no immediate remedy to it. Hang offenders and families. Do you think that will solve the problem ? Just as well invading other countries would solve terrorist attacks or just create more hate ? It's no simple solution. For one we should start by dealing with the fact that this is the world we are living in, the world that we have created. It will be terrorist attack in the future. And I feel violence as a response is only aggravating matters

Come on man stop. It's a bunch of low life criminal individuals commuting terrorist attacks for personal beliefs. They don't represent the position of their countries. McVein, or whatever his name was, did a terrorist attack. Would it be justifiable to identify him with more than himself, identify him with US or blow up his state ?

I just read between the line, but let me ask you this, do you think it's justifiable to invade a coutry because someone from that country committed a terrorist attack ? My opinion is individuals don't equal or represent countries. And like it or not it is not justifiable.

So much info in one post, true it helps both sides and indeed the NK nuclear attacks fooled noone. I for one am fed with human curiosity for morbid things, probably I've reached my limit. I'm also tired of having fear pumped into me by each news station or news bulletin I watch

Then I'd better pack my things and start curing world hunger, my plan to cure the sick fuck in the H6 people may indeed be a harder thing to achieve.

Yes I don't say we hide the truth. But not sure how it helps knowing this took place. How it helps you ?

No. They should just learn that ANYTHING they do will not get converge or our attention

I don't say we should be ignorant of the world that surrounds us, not at all, but knowing such crimes is not helpful to us as individuals. What can you learn from it ? That there is hatered and crimes going on in the world ? Yeah.. Is that new ? Do you want to be constantly reminded by it in order to be aware we are surrounded by it ? I think it only managed to promote fear a more hatred, makes us feel this is the normal state of things, when in fact it isn't

Yes, I don't say not allow it, censor it, obviously a tv station can't be forced not to report such an event. So there isn't a solution for it. But will the audience at some point in the future say: no this is not news, not something that we can use, we prefer not to pay any attention to it. And tv stations take the same stand on it: we will not cover such events at all.

All news outlets cover such events and feel they need to do so as soon as possible and as detailed as possible. For me, this is not news, it is not telling me anything useful, all it does is propagate fear and give attention to the criminals. And I do pay attention to news and like to be informed but not with such news.

In a utopic universe, what if every time a bombing or a school shooting goes on the media would totally ignore it. Or at least don't cover it at such magnitude. I feel it has only been a couple of hours since this took place and it already made headlines all around the world. Isn't this what the authors of such crimes are looking for in the first place ? So why give it to them ? Fuck them, they shouldn't get our attention. They don't deserve one split second of it.

Would you prefer this approach ? Do you think it would help deter future such crimes ?

They decriminalized consumption 10 years ago. And created a lot of support for drug users so they could get rid of the addiction. There's a post in related media.

The conclusion: after decriminaluzing the use of all drug, drug abuse down by half. Not bad

I have to: is this how it works there ?

Thinking back on it, yeah a discussion should be had. Because we should remember the guy on pcp that was eating another guy's face. Well, I wouldn't want pcp to be available at any store because I wouldn't want to have around folks that feel it's alright to eat me. Goes for any other drug that has this effect on people or similar effects.

Let me not agree with the positive effects of hard drugs. I can understand some medical use of some, but if one tries to tell me I should try a hard drug because my life might change for the better, I'll pass

To answer the question: he must have been a smooth criminal

Tell us how. Also I wouldn't take LSD and expect it would improve my life. Or any other (hard) drug for that matter. It is your story and I'm happy for you, but that shouldn't be an argument pro legalizing drugs.

One more question for you. Pornography. Should we make it illegal because it is harmful to children ?

The issue is, there might be a better solution about preventing people to consume drugs than to make them illegal and make it a crime to consume drugs. Why ? Because this solution is proving inefficient and in the process we harm a lot of innocent people.

Let's not go to extremes, but answer 1 simple question. Why should it be illegal for me to consume drugs ? Why should I be put in jail for it ? Do I get put in jail for inflicting pain to myself ? Maybe that should be a law too.

You mix different concepts that have nothing to do with each other to prove your point. Decriminalizing murder ?? Again the answer is in the video.

We should be protected from harm other people do against us. If it's harm we do against ourselves, we should still get help, but medical help, education help that would prevent it, counseling, not make that action illegal

Do you think that them being illegal would make my kids not use them if that's what they'd want to do ?

I myself would go 1 step ahead at this point with no hesitation: decriminalize marijuana and allow it to be sold in specialized shops under regulations. In the same step I would decriminalize drug consumption. I would also stop the war on drugs. That's it. Selling heroine at the corner store, I wouldn't at this point. In theory I'm not against it, but some planning and discussions should go into it.

I mean why should it be illegal for me to consume drugs ? It does harm you ? How about me shooting myself ? Should that be illegal ?

And about the harm it does to society, why should I be the one determining what's harm for society ? Let it figure out for itself. If you don't understand that drugs are bad, great, you need to be weeded out of society then.

I would NOT point taxation and the additional revenue out of it. Simply because you and all the other normal citizens will not see a dime of it anyways. Not in better health programs, education system etc. They will still find a way to get that money to themselves. Invent some new war or some new scheme. Simple.

This is the biggest argument pro war on drugs. These money go where they should. Creating a free market and letting everyone compete would take away a huge chunk of money from the people in power and the beneficiaries of these wars

We thing from the perspective of what's right and wrong, what would be beneficiary for the common man, the people in power and legal regulator NOT. They have a totally different agenda and will always do

If you would have watched the video, you would have gotten your answer. As it is you can legally manufacture your own alcohol and cigarettes. How many people do ? Very few. It would be the same case.

I don't understand 1 thing. Why fight so hard to keep something illegal. It will create other problem. Fine. What the fuck ever. Why impose a legal ban on something that should be free. Why waste money on wars against it ?

My question to you is why do drugs need to stay illegal ? Make it as simple as possible please

I know it's 15min long, but it's worth it

This was a quote: was not that "the bankers are despicable human beings and that we should hang them in public places". I was trying to say: I didn't share this video for hateful comments like these, but to bring to your attention something rare, a fine piece of journalism.

True, I should have put some quotes in there, like: What was striking to me, was not "that the bankers are despicable human beings and that we should hang them in public places". And what I meant was: I haven't brought this video to your attention so we can spill some hatred towards bankers, but for 2 reasons. And the 2 reasons are in my comment. I'm sorry for not making that more clear and I hope noone plussed for the hateful part

What was striking to me, was not that the bankers are despicable human beings and that we should hang them in public places, but 2 things: that he came with a set speech, how everything is great etc etc but was unable to react and have a decent response to a direct, honest question. This means he was not prepared for it because most, if not all interviews are rigged and the journalists are bought just like everyone else and also means this guy, like all international banking representatives, is just a puppet. And second, the genuine journalist, asking a simple, direct question, a question asked in the interest of the general audience and not accepting being bullshited. And that is rare these days.

So yeah, great job Ireland.

So we don't jump to unnecessary conclusions, can you further explain

Also because it's in bad taste, that's why I negged at least. It's like saying you want to witness people getting gassed by the nazis. Or any other genocide. It's cool, it is your wish, but it's something trivial that needs to stay at the bottom at this topic in my eyes.

Still awkward as fuck

You simply can witness that on youtube. Want to feel the smell and everything else, go to the crematory.

Yes cool music too. But god damn, how did you remember such a thing existed in here ? Anyways I'm sure most of the people haven't seen this

Might be a coping mechanism. Also we as a whole sholdn't want that girl to give birth anyways. I agree morality is not at the highest levels in all of of, but restricting access to abortion don't solve anything.

That's 1h 10mins.. Also looks old as fuck. But I will trust you that the conclusion is accurate

True, it is a very hard decision to take. And it leaves a lot of guilt behind. And it is painful. And most of the times women choose to keep the baby even if they aren't prepared to raise it. It creates all conditions to offer a great start in life to the newborn, the idea that it was entirely your choice.

It is so strange how legal systems can affect our inner selves and inner values. I feel people should be free to decide for themselves if it is or if it isn't murder. Be awarded the presumption they know what's best for them. Let them be free, let them decide.

Instead you impose a law that says the society and the system knows what's best for me. And this law simply sinks in our souls. Makes us afraid of something we shouldn't be afraid of.

Legally father shouldn't have a say. If there's an agreement between the partners, all right. Also something very important I want to point out. Females don't just go, "hey I'm going to have an abortion today", it's not like having coffee with your friends, it's painful, it has dangers, it's is very hard on the conscience, it has a high dosage of guilt and it is viewed as the absolute last option. At least in my culture, among the persons I get in contact with. Most of females choose to keep the baby against all odds, even if it isn't a planned baby, even if the mother is way too young and unprepared. It's not like women have abortions just like they go to the market.

Absolutely on offense, but I would feel uncomfortable having that mindset. People should be free and awarded with the presumption of knowing what's best for them.

Viewing abortion as murder is inhumane. Bringing an unwanted child into the world that's murder.

I believe we're talking about a legal say, not a consultation between the partners

It doesn't simply because it's the woman's body. What if a woman doesn't want the baby but the man does, so she is forced to have it. She has complications at birth and dies. Should the father be hold responsible for it ?

No, the father shouldn't have a say in it. If he didn't want to pay child support he should have used a condom.

But for me it's totally mind bugging that a woman can't have an abortion, whenever she wants it and for whatever reason. Here, where I live, you can do this. You could do this under the communist regime just as well. It feels natural because it always has been like this, but also because it is a basic human right, and it does more good than bad. Why be forced to bring into the world a child that is not wanted, that the parents do not have the means, time, desire etc to raise. It is just crippling a new life.

I believe the only reason is religion. And stupidity.

A woman should have control over her life in all aspects of it.

Did NOT expect that

That's actually a valid point. Sell them things they haven't seen before and of course do that and charge them money you lend them, with interest. So with a quick scheme you earn a lot of money over a long period of time. I lived for a while under communism, it's not that these people live a non-material life, it's the only one that's offered to them