Avaron
-
Content Count
321 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Avaron
-
-
"How can you raise with that?! That's not poker, that's politics! YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO SPELL POKER!!!"
-
yet we don't have to bend over for china...In one generation, Germany went from delousing Europe to gaydom. -
starting good again...
-
Negreanu LeadingPosted 1 minute ago by donpeters"There's a lot more there than there was before," said Daniel Negreanu to our reporter who was counting his stack. We eyeballed it at around 210,000 and Negreanu informed us that he cracked Saar Wilf's pocket aces to get the chips.According to Negreanu, Wilf raised and Negreanu flatted with the {10-Diamonds}{9-Diamonds}. The flop came {K-}{9-}{9-} and Wilf fired. Negreanu called. Wilf then barreled the blank turn and blank river, to which Negreanu called off."Easy game," he said.
-
i'd like thatLakers > Thunder in 5Mavs > Spurs in 7Suns > Blazers in 5Nuggets > Jazz in 7Cavs > Bulls in 5Magic > Bobcats in 4Hawks > Bucks in 5Celtics > Heat in 7Lakers > Nuggets in 5Mavs > Suns in 7Cavs > Celtics in 5Magic > Hawks in 5Mavs > Lakers in 6Magic > Cavs in 6Mavs > Magic in 7
-
that's circumstantial evidence. unless we find a stock with nuclear warheads, we'll never know if everything was just a huge bluff. iran kind of does the same thing now. everybody is pretty sure that they aren't able to built wmds right now, but ahmadinejad is talking big. that doesn't proof anything besides that the guy has a big mouth and is completely delusional.and yes, i know that we still mustn't allow him to continue with the research.I am not sure I agree that there was much intelligance that said Saddam didn't have any WMDs.Iraq had them, used them and had bought the lab equipment from the French to make it. All that as true during the first gulf war.Saddam himself was telling everyone who would listen that he had them and would use them when he needed to.There were missing centrifuges that we knew he had, but never found after the first gulf war because we later found out they buried them in the sand.This ruined them, but still they had WMD making stuff, and we never found out what happened to it.The UN was sending in weapons inspectors to findout if Saddam had any WMDs, not because they were fans of Reagan's "Trust but verify" policy, but because there was enough evidence to warrent insection.Then Saddam kicks them out, and makes clear threats to imply he would bring us to our knees.We found a building filled with chemical suits, brand new ones. We found generals who told us they thought they had chemical weapons.It seems now that the Monday morning quarterbacks have rewritten history and turned the truth into democrat propoganda laced sound bites.I trust that history will show this to be the case -
Stacks: SB with $7.90 BB with $25.00 bluuuffyou7 with $20.53 BTN with $7.76Poker Forum8-Game 0.20/0.40, Pot Limit OmahaBlinds: $0.10/$0.20Site: PokerstarsStacks: SB with $7.90 BB (Hero) with $25.00 bluuuffyou7 with $20.53 BTN with $7.76 Dealt to BB (Hero):5♣ K♠ A♣ 7♠Preflop: bluuuffyou7 calls [$0.10] 1 players fold. SB calls [$0.05] Hero: checks Total folds this street: 1 Potsize: $0.3Flop: 7♦ 10♣ J♠ SB: checks Hero: checks bluuuffyou7 bets [$0.30] 1 players fold.Hero calls [$0.30] Total folds this street: 1 Potsize: $0.9Turn: 6♣ Hero: checks bluuuffyou7 bets [$0.90] Hero raises $1.60 to $2.50 bluuuffyou7 raises $5.90 to $8.40 HERO ???
-
wasn't talking particulary about northern ireland there.Thats not what I said and does not apply in anyway to Northern Ireland. -
that's exactly my point: it's all about territory, power, influence, money. religion is more like false pretense for the people in the back so they can use the uneducated extreme believers
-
am i? weren't the reasons in northern ireland mostly territorial and infrastructural?You do notice that you are quick to point out the 'other' factors when considering Islamic violence, while ignoring these same factors to point to Christian violence? -
no, since that's pretty much standart for every politician or at least head of governement/state. and you can say that in a democracy it is all about reacting to current trends in the population. but as i said, no one forces me to agree to the message.Does the fact that 'most' of the messages are written by someone else who received instructions from a focus group on the current trends in the political climate and what 'message' would result in the most positive responses change your view at all? -
what took you so long?^^well, it's all about spin these days. as i said, there are radicals in every religion. if you dig deep enough, i'm pretty sure you'll find radical jews also. and that there has been terror with christian background recently should be obvious (not talking about crusades. ireland.).i'm not accusing or defending anything. just stating facts and my opinion. the reason that the potential for terrorism is that big in islam, lies more in infrastructural, territorial, educational problems. why does the potential for radicalism and terror develop in areas like yemen, somalia, afghanistan/pakistan border regions, etc? why do the most suicide bombers and actual terrorists (not the guys in the background) come from those countries and not from saudi arabia, katar, dubai - all muslim countries also?
In 2007 Islam and Judaism's holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days.Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10countries during this time... while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize.Good link showing the 'religion of peace' -
the message is important imo, not the way it is delivered. i personally don't care, if politicians even would need a living prompter, as long as i can understand his message. whether i agree to it, or not, is a different thing.
-
edit: dabetka beat me to it.This.I have no idea how Andy Bloch interpreted it. -
i'm sure daniel didn't mean to say what it sounds like. but andy pretty much nailed it on the head here.
-
since it just depends on the people that created them, yes. satanism has its origins in christianity...Why should we believe this? The same exact potential to do harm? Exact same for every religion and ideology? Why do you think that? Satanism just as dangerous as Christianity for example?
their radicals are worse than the christian radicals in our days. but in essence, you can compare them to the christian radicals a couple of centuries ago.i know , it's a long shot, but i sometimes think that islam, as it is "younger" than christianity, gose through a similar state christianity had during the times of crusades, burning of witches etc. christanity was very authoritarian and wanted basically the same things, islam wants today: more power, bigger territory etc.And they are both harmful. But Islam is worse.
agreed. it's often stated, that the world would be a lot more peaceful without religions. i think, it would be enough if all the religions thought about their similarities. christianity, islam and judaism have the same roots and even relate on each other.I don't know who you're referring to exactly, so I can't really answer this. But certainly fundamentalists are people who follow the religion more closely - by definition. And those people are crazy, yes. -
guns don't kill people, people kill people. of course has every religion the same potential to do harm, it just depends on how some crazy radicals interprete them. bible and koran are basically from the same tree, just different branches. in both books can you find passages with the potential to be interpreted as harmful.The implicit assumption here is that all religions are exactly equal in their potential to do harm. I do not see why we would ever assume that to be true. Certain ideas are more dangerous than others. Small details in a set of ideas can matter quite a bit.
not necessarily. how about all the violent missionaries in our history, who basically gave this choice: "convert or die"? did they pervert catholizism or did they follow it more closely?No one thinks that every muslim is a suicide bomber. If I say to you I am going to start a set of ideas which will lead to 100 people who are very nice, but will create 15 people who are intent on destroying the world, wouldn't you think that was a problem? The whole point of this essay too was that the so-called peaceful majority of muslims are complicit in the damage that the so-called radicals are creating. And, they kind of have to be, because those guys are not "perverting" the religion as is heard so often, they are actually following it more closely. -
did this long ago. didn't change me or my life.You can start OT first, as long as you are going to read it all.Think of it more like a quick start guide to the whole manual. -
and they may really believe that. for the people in the background, they simply are tools for their use.I agree with the OP 100% and find it to be very well-written. I strongly disagree with this post. The most destructive property of the guys guiding those planes into buildings was that they truly believed they would be rewarded in the afterlife.
of course you can. with proper propaganda, enough time and maybe an enigmatic person at the top, you can implement almost any idea/ideology/behavior to people who are susceptible to it. happens every day, from commercials to politics.the biggest part of islam (sunni islam, 85% of world's islam) is absolutely peaceful. it's so peaceful, most people haven't even heard about it. but like every religion, islam has lots of different branches, from liberal to extreme. and of course, in our media world, you only hear about the extreme parts.You simply cannot generate such behavior without an effective, culturally endorsed ideological poison like Islam. The analogy to Nazism is very apt.
well, in northern ireland, it worked with the "effective, culturally endorsed ideological poison" named christianityYou simply cannot generate such behavior -
he has a point. true believers of any religion generally don't turn into terrorists, b/c i don't know any religion that teaches killing, mass murder, etc. what all the three big religions (christianity, islam, jews) have in common, is, that at one point in their respective holy books, they all tell stories of wars against non-believers. this is the stuff extremists feed from.and of course, religion is always a good excuse for political motivated extremism. it was the reason for the crusades (true motivations: conquering land, gaining control over resources, and simply looting). it is (to some extent) the reason for the conflicts in the middle east. and it is the excuse for hegemonic conflicts in the arabic world, where it is all simply about power, influence etc.and i'm pretty sure, that the main reason for international terrorism isn't religion, but plain and simple the struggle for power, influence and money. not saying, religion isn't, but it is certainly not the main reason.Perhaps you should pull your head out of the sand. -
so basically he said he didn't want to be responsible for other people's money, only for his own. can't blame him.He had said that he wouldnt do it but if he had it wouldnt be with a group of people he would just come up with the buy in and do it himself -
congratz, gibler. wp, sir!
-
gl, sir, tid
-
yeah, that's true, i'm afraid. so if they don't get another shot this/next season, what should he do? go to lakers/spurs/othertitlecandidate?i love the team this season. dirk's playing great, kidd plays like 10 years younger, and guy like terry and barea are great. if they can keep up like this for the whole season, they might have another shot.What's that, Michael Jordan?OP, I love Dirk and would like to see him win with the Mavs, but he had his shot.
Have Republicans Gone Insane?
in Politics, Economics and News
Posted
Shouldn't be the goal of society to develop to a point where stuff like this won't be necessary?
You're right. If schools were guarded and personnel be armed, then the next shooter MAYBE thinks twice about it. Then again, most of these shooters don't go there with the intention to stay alive anyway...
Now I was about to ask how we could prevent things like this from happening in the first place by improving the system to detect such dangers (like, for example, if the "batman" shooter actually had competent medical/psychological care. The problem could have been detected and stopped way before it happened). But I already know the counter-argument: There are always evil people (basically).
So then, what stops the guard or teacher from snapping and turning nuts and starting to shoot?