Decadent dogs

Hey, they got one good actor. That Jean Reno guy.

Not fully fail.

 

International Food Fight

also
In 2000 the Concord crashed near Paris killing 113, 100 of which where German.
...
...
It was said that after 50 years the French finale figured out how to kill Germans.

 

Not blaming them. Just saying it took awhile.

 

And I'm just saying the only thing the French can host is an invasion. Case closed.

 

Actually, I once went to an absolutely amazing dinner hosted by the French.

Great cooks, good targets for an invasion, uglist beach-goers in existance. That's France in a nutshell, folks.

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=68D03142-1D89-4D54-9354-5F5C4D088DAF

 

Sweet fucking lord, this is bad.

Down with the UN! Point me towards that sniper rifle, I have work to do!

 

Somehow, I don't think this news website even attempts to give a fair and arbitrary look at the news, so I won't form an opinion based on the article.

 

Carpet nuking is a good idea, right?
It'll be horrible at first, but in the long run it'll be more productive than anything the UN would do.

News never does. It's for ratings and the hell with the truth. Just like when my ex-wife sued me for "abuse". She stabbed me with a steak knife and I fell down the stairs. Somehow that translates into legalese as me being abusive :/

 

Yes, it is really ironic, because now the (U.N.) is doing the same thing as what the extremists of the Islam wants.

 

I don't see the big deal. I'm pretty extreme about my love of free speech, but I don't see any free speech stifling in this. Maybe I'm missing something here, but this seems to be about preventing discriminatory ACTIONS, and not discriminatory WORDS. It's true, the idea of preventing 'hate-mongering' in media is a cramp for free-speech that I don't agree with (though it's also true that we're all heavily influenced by media, and it's easy to sway our views with it), but overall it's more about preventing us from beating up minorities or taking their moneys away (minorities generally don't have that much money anyway).

Allowing complete free speech even if you disagree with the opinion is about letting the KKK blabber on about their bullshit, and not about letting them hang niggers.

 

America won't cut funding to the U.N.; the Democrats will never allow it. It's too useful for giving them an excuse not to do anything.

 

True, I've always disagreed with anti-slander and defamation laws, though I'm always wary about when lies are fed to people (even in a non-propaganda sense, like when the tabloids ran the story about Elton John having an orgy with a bunch of teenage boys). However, defamation in a legal sense generally refers to giving misinformation to harm the reputation of a particular group.

From what I see, the resolution was certainly done with Islam in mind, but it does not favor this group over any religious or cultural group. To properly follow with this resolution, we must look at the I don't agree with the religion myself, and I disagree with silencing anyone, even hate-mongerers, but I'm all for not attacking Mosques. The resolution is trying to create an environment in which people are educated about different cultures and religions. This doesn't seem that bad. It's more anti-burningdownplacesofworship than it is anti-free speech.

 

Yes. Iran wants nuclear weapons so badly I saw we give them a few, right up their ass.

 

First we better have the Defense Shield working, and then we can shoving some nuclear missiles up their asses. Is it possible that Pakistan will help Iran after such attack?

 

Perhaps they will. Honestly though, if we wanted to do it we could just nuke all of our problems away. Our biggest threat would be Russia, they still have a 24/7 watch on all of our shit. The cold war isn't over by any means.