Forum posts made by elitfromnorth

Topic Has the UK replaced the US as the political laughingstock of the world?
Posted 05 Jul 2016 22:08

we'll always be the laughing stock as long as we have Obama. and will continue to be if we get Hillary. it'll take someone with balls like Trump to change world opinion about us.

Believe me, the world will not think you've done a good job if you elect Trump. With his rethoric America will probably alienate half the countries in the world will the other half will try to figure out how to work things out without the US. Trump as president will end up in two things:
1) US becomes more isolated as Trumps rethoric alienates more and more countries. Trade agreements will go to shits and Europe will start looking elsewhere for friends.
2) Trump goes back on all he's said, does nothing about it and all his voters realise that he's just another politician. Will get kicked out after 4 years and just as likely Democrats will win both houses after 2 years.

Topic Old game series that needs to be redone.
Posted 20 Dec 2015 16:27

Not really a series, but Outlaws was an epic game. Have returned to it from time to time. Old western game where when you reloaded your revolver you got in two bullets each time. Rifle was one shot each reload. No cross hair, meaning you had to aim with your actual gun. It was great.

Topic The Ukraine Crisis
Posted 15 Mar 2015 15:19

Who are you aligning yourself with - against Putin?

The Russians have a bit of history, up close and very personal - with these fuckers. In 'the old days' they were called The Third Reich.

Add in the fact that there's a widespread desire to have America throw in with them against Putin - is quite informative, about those who would have Obama do so.

These aren't freedom fighters in Ukraine.

The far right was a necessity for the Ukrainian revolution. They were the ones that were armed and ready to fight against the police/army of the old regime. If they hadn't participated Ukraine would still be under Russian control since the protesters would have been butchered. And the current government is weak and thus still needs the far right. It is nothing different than USA and Stalin allying against Hitler. An alliance born out of necessity, not out of common ground.

Topic Capital Punishment
Posted 05 Mar 2015 14:56

Indonesia want to stop drug smuggling. They want smugglers to know they mean business. I think the executions do just that.

Capital punishment has proven to be one of the worst precautionary or sending signals thing to do. It doesn't do jack shit and death row inmates are usually a lot more expensive than life without parole. There's no good reason for it.

Maybe they let them through simply to give them a higher sentence. Or because an extradition to Australia would be a great bargaining chip to get them to give up the entire ring. 2-3 years in Aussie prison for possession won't scare you a lot. The prospect of life in Singapore might get you to give up the entire ring, those ordering the damn thing and everything. And I doubt they thought Singapore would actually go through with the execution. Executing a foreign national will really piss off the home country and diplomatic reprocussions can be extremely harsh. I bet the police did a gamble and lost.

Topic Crisis in Ukraine
Posted 14 Feb 2015 18:29

Putin wants a strong Russia and for that Russia needs friends. At the moment all the former Warzaw pact countries are leaning towards EU, leaving Putin with nothing more than his Asian former USSR countries as buddies. Up until recently Ukraine was a good buddy for Putin. Despite seeming like a crazy dictator, Putin is a genius tactician. Right now he's supporting the rebels making sure that they are keeping Ukraine at worst(for Putin) divided, at best at a civil war. As long as Ukraine is in a civil war they cannot enter the EU or NATO, making sure they at least stay a buffer zone. And then it's a waiting game. Wait for the EU to fuck over Ukraine and then watch the next election create a pro Russian government. What Putin need is for Ukraine to stay away from the EU. As long as that happens he's happy.

Topic Three-parent babies - anyone else freaked out?
Posted 08 Feb 2015 14:34

If there is anyone who wants further explanation of genetics and the role of mitochondria, write to me and I wil try to give a simple explanation.

Best.... pickup line.... ever!!!

Topic Connecticut teen legally forced to undergo chemotherapy
Posted 12 Jan 2015 16:50

But Fortin says it's her daughter's right to refuse chemotherapy, saying she doesn't want to poison her body.

"This is not about death," Fortin says. "My daughter is not going to die. This is about, 'This is my body, my choice, and let me decide.' "

"My daughter is not going to die, even if she has been diagnosed with cancer that will most certainly kill her wtihout any treatment" So unless she proves something that is actually scientifically proven to work against the cancer, and she says that she will opt for that part(like surgery or whatever) then I will put this women in the same group as those that say vaccines cause autism. That in itself should disqualify you for even getting a child.

Topic Verb-subject agreement dilemma. Need help!
Posted 05 Jan 2015 15:15

Another way to analysis the sentence -- and this is something I learned many years ago when I was an ickle girl -- is strip away the descriptive words so you're left with the very core of the sentence.

In this case the core of the sentence would read: "A group is playing".

Sounds much better than "A group are playing", don't you think?

There's a big grammatical difference between "A group" and "A group of people". In the first example you can replace "A group" with "It", thus making it correct with is because we are talking about a single group. The core of the phrase here is "group" and thus it becomes is. However in the second example "People" become the core of the sentence and determines the conjugation of the verb, thus "A group of people" are since it is plural. This is one of the more complex and tricky ones in grammar and sadly the only thing that will get it right is.... studying *awaits for the large moan and displeased people*

As for the British English; Yes, you can say American English and you can say British English. Both are equal when it comes to academics and especially in teaching a second language. You might get grumpy looks in the UK for writing AE, but no one with English as a non-native language will criticise you for writing color and not colour.

Topic New Premium Membership policy
Posted 02 Jan 2015 18:53

I just heard about all of this. I think I'll just leave. I'm only 19 with a new baby on the way. My husband and I have enough expenses as it is and its a shame because this place sort of spiced things up for us and it was where I planned to write more stories as a creative outlet. Oh well. Its not entirely necessary for me. dontknow

Go look at the graphics and you'll see what you can and can't do

Even as a non-paying member you can still post stories and read and comment and all that crap. It's simply because black boxes and PM's take up shitload of server space. Chatrooms are stored locally on your comp so they don't take up that much server space. Read through the site announcement and don't rely on angry members' information. It's like reading twitter for news...

Topic Questions concerning the new Membership options can be asked here
Posted 02 Jan 2015 18:47

That does not change the fact that taking away BASIC rights like having friends and talking to said friends is wrong.

Basic rights? You don't have any rights in here. In here you have priveleges that is Nic's right to take away from you whenever she feels like. You can't even send a letter to your mum without having to pay postage for it, but you believe you have the right to send messages in here without being charged a tiny fee?

I might not be Nic's greatest fan, but from the time I have known her I doubt that her intention with this is so that she and Gav can go on a four week trip to Mauritius and light their cigars with $100 bills while enjoying their Dom Perignon '57. To be honest I'd say that making people pay to stay here is not only reasonable, it is also a last resort. Instead of users you are now customers. This increases the pressure on her and Gav to keep this site at a top level. You're not paying top dollar, but you're still expecting to be feed something good(unlike if you're a customer of Ubisoft. Then you pay a lot of money and get served shite).

Also, is it so that you can't block people unless you're Gold? Because I would reconsider that if I were you guys. Also how about another little perk for Gold members; They can recieve messages from regular users. I once was on a dating site where they had regular(free) users, plus and super(most expensive). Free users could only send messages to super users, plus could send messages to plus and super users and super could send messages to everyone. Is that possible or is that gonna give poor old Gav nightmares through his coding?

Topic The SONY hacking
Posted 25 Dec 2014 17:27

So Sony is willing to risk getting shit from China and North Korea(two countries that Japan has a terrible relationship with), involve the FBI, expose personal e-mails that were rather embarassing and probably alianted a lot of big actors, just so one movie could get some more publicity? Fair enough some of the actors mentioned aren't all that, but I bet there are another couple of actors that will now think twice before doing a movie for Sony again. And just because NSA doesn't know about it in advance doesn't mean it won't happen.

Don't think Sony has gained anything from this if it was a publicity stunt. And considering they pulled the movie in the first place because a bunch of cinemas refused to show them since they could be liable for lawsuits should a terrorist attack happen, then I think the evidence pointing towards an actual hack being more realistic than a conspiracy theory.

Topic The SONY hacking
Posted 24 Dec 2014 05:14

Whether or not all the revelations are factual or not (and remember nearly all large organisations have questionable morals and ethics) why has Sony kowtowed to some insignificant country such as North Korea?

Because Sony is a Japanese country with headquarters in Japan. Japan has always been afraid that one of the bi-polar "I am God" dictators in North Korea should finally snap and start sending missiles towards South-Korea or Japan. A butthurt Kim Jong Un is fully capable of deciding that a movie is an attack on North Korea and it proves that (insert some fucked up reason here) and thus justifies an attack. The fear of getting executed will get every North Korean moving to the front line. North Korea attacks South and Japan and then suddenly China has to get involved because they're the only friend North Korea has. The second you think that this is just about a movie for the Japanese, then you have failed to see the bigger picture and that it involves a crazy dictator who can easily start a war whenever he feels like it.

Topic Feminists go bonkers
Posted 20 Nov 2014 14:25

I'll take self criticism on one point: Me writing "the" feminists instead of "these" does generalise the entire movement. I know there are sensible feminists and that there are bonkers ones. So the generalisation I made was indeed a mistake and not something I intended.

Secondly, I have read somewhere that the shirt and figures on it is a reference to an 80's or 90's TV series, probably only known to nerds. I have no refernce to this so I can't claim the accuracy of this, however to me it makes sense. To him this would be nothing more than a tacky version of Sheldon Cooper's green lantern or flash t shirts.

So tell me then. If the majority of feminists are moderate and want equality, if they would rather focus on the 1 dollar v 73 cents issue, how come situations like the shirt one seem to be getting more attention than the moderate feminists. Fair enough media has a part in it as they love these kind of stories, but surely that can't be all. During the international women's day here in Norway the statements made in the marches are usually more radical than views presented by many feminists(especially young ones) and they most certainly alienate a bunch of men that in general do support equality.

Not to mention that many of these feminists do nothing but write these blogs and articles that contribute nothing other than a witch hunt against a brilliant researcher who is reduced to tears as he present his apology on a press conference. If women think "Oh dear, one dude is wearing a shirt with women on it. I'm definetely not going into that field of study" then your passion for science was not there from the start and the whole place is much better without her there.

Topic Which is your favourite Assassins Creed game, and who is your favourite Assassin?
Posted 18 Nov 2014 14:33

AC III sucked. The personalities in it were terrible and overall it was not enjoyable. Not to mention that Connor has no character development, no passion and not a single cheeky or funny remark. Not to mention that getting money was a terrible grind overall. Sprinkle in a dash of QET and you have a flop.

Favourite must be Brotherhood or Revelations. Istanbul is an awesome city and especially the turf war is cool. Add a few bombs, hookblade and the crossbow and you have a shitload of possibilities. The only downside about the AC II trio is the combat system that is simply too easy. Not to mention that looting in AC II is literally pointless unless you're in desperate need of medicine.

Black Flag

Topic Feminists go bonkers
Posted 18 Nov 2014 14:25

In case you have been living in a cave for the last couple of weeks then you will have noticed that ESA landed a space probe on a comet. That in itself is a pretty big achievement, but instead of saying a job well done a lot of people have spent their time raging over that one of the guys wore a shirt made to him from a FEMALE friend. This shirt had women in sexy outfits, but nothing more than that. So they say he's pushing women out of the scientific community and so on. Articles like this is the first one that pops up if you google "ESA feminist"

So, are the feminists right? Is it a poor choice of clothes and not just bad taste? Is he pushing women out of the scientific community?

Personally I think once again that the feminists have lost the plot and that these women don't want equality, they want women to be considered superior to men. If a female scientist had been wearing a short skirt and a tight blouse with some cleavage they would either bitch just as much, hail her for daring to dress in a way that makes her comfortable or just not say a damn thing. But you can be sure they would raise hell if the majority started calling her a slut based on her choice of clothes. I'm starting to lose more and more respect for the feminist cause and not to mention the ones calling themselves feminists. Call yourself a feminist and I'm going to be guarded. Not because I don't support equality, I do, but because women like these in general give feminism a bad name and a bad rep.

Topic Question for my fellow Christians on lush.
Posted 07 Nov 2014 13:30

In my view the teachings of the Bible really comes down to one sentence: Try to avoid being a cunt.

That's basically it. It's not more complicated than that in my view. The specific rules about what you should and should not do are too strict to actually make a modern human being practice a religion and not feel guilty about himself for treating others well. So what if he loves another dude. If God is as good as the Bible and the church says He is, then he will overlook the fact that you took it up the arse from another dude. He will focus on the fact that you didn't get piss drunk and drove through a school with a lorry.

Topic Ray Rice - What are your thoughts?
Posted 11 Sep 2014 15:23

1. If you resort to violence then you're instantly an idiot, regardless of gender. It doesn't matter how hard you hit, it's the symbolism of it. If a woman punches her man then she won't get any sympathy from me if he hits back. I haven't seen the video fully, but if she struck first then why should he get all the hate while she's portrayed as a victim? They're both guilty of spousal abuse and deserve the same sentence should there be a prosecution. A push/shove that forces a person to take a few steps back is completely different from punching/slapping. I could forgive my girlfriend for pushing me during a heated argument, but if she slaps/punches me we're talking a different league of behaviour. If she punched/slapped him first then she gets absolutely no sympathy from me, knocked out cold or not. There is no level of spousal abuse, only difference is if it's a one time thing or repeated.

Putting all the blame on the man when the woman is just as bad keeps upholding the image and idea that men should be capable of handling physical and phsycological abuse from women. If you want true equality between men and women then stop looking down on men who gets abused by women. As long as you resort to violence you're a cunt, regardless of gender. As long as you're on the recieving end of violence, it be a slap that just burns or a knock out punch, you're a victim, regardless of gender.

2. Unless he has a clause in his contract that says if he should be found to act unethical in any way his contract can be terminated I can't see why they should react at all. It's up to his employer who is the club. I'm assuming the sponsor has the possibility to pull out should they not agree to the behaviour, but your employer has nothing to do with what you do off the job. You see footballers in Europe speeding, drunk driving and cheating, yet they recieve little punishment by the club unless it affects their sporting performance. Just look at the John Terry case; taken to court for racism during a match(found innocent by the court), suspended six matches by the FA(because it happened on the pitch), but nothing from the club. If it happens off the pitch/field then the club and Association has nothing to do with it.

Topic Tesla
Posted 07 Sep 2014 14:35

Found an interesting graph here

It shows that if the power to the Tesla comes from coal power plants, a Tesla will pollute more than a Lexus hybrid car. Global electricity mix(meaning where 2/3 of the electricity is from coal) you still pollute more in a Tesla than in a Prius. Power needs to come from pure natural gas before they're greener than the Prius. Note that this does not take into consideration the pollution of production which is higher when producing electric cars than regular cars.

So if electric cars are to be greener than regular cars then you need them to be either more efficient per kilometer than they currently are as well as making power plants greener. Until then you're actually greener by getting a more fuel efficient car(note; this is given that a lot of the electricity used to charge your car is mostly out of fossil fuel like coal or oil)

Topic Tesla
Posted 06 Sep 2014 16:29

Right now I couldn't because I live too far from where I work. I really don't want to live any closer either, so I'll have to wait until the range is greater, or Tesla puts up some charging stations around here, which will likely happen in the year 2200.

I really don't see how electric cars will help much though. The electric companies use fossil fuels to make electricity. Why would it take less petroleum to run an electric car a mile than a internal combustion engine? The electricity has to come from some where, and if it's coming from a coal burning plant, it's still polluting the planet. I'm a little afraid of nuclear power, and wind energy is still only in the beginning stages. Hydroelectric plants might be an answer, but how many more rivers do we have left to dam up?

I'll admit, though, that I know nothing about how electricity works. I do know it doesn't just come out of a switch though.

Nuclear power plants are quite safe, as long as your maintenance level is above Soviet Union and you don't have a shift leader that says fuck the rulebook during tests. Fukushima is a bit of a special case, considering that it's placed in a very unstable environment. Place it somewhere where it is less likely to be hit by severe natural disasters and you'll be good. Every heard of a German Nuclear Plant going to shits? The only problem is the storage of nuclear waste, but find some nice mountains, dig in and store it there until technology finds a way to break it down.

If governments had the balls then it's very easy to push companies to create gas, oil and coal power plants to create CO2 filters that will either store it or clean it. It's just a matter of want. Electric cars is the new big thing because A) They get the super charger technology from Tesla for free and B) It's an easy way for government to yell "clean air!" when you don't have China sized smog clouds in the big cities. It'll be much easier to bring economic incentives for people to buy electric cars(shitload of them here in Norway, which basically makes a Tesla cheaper during it's first year than most other cars). This in turn will turn electric cars into a big seller meaning all the big manufacturers will want to cash in somehow. This means you have the good old competition of who can give the best car and voila, improvement of technology. Tesla, Nissan and VW are already battling it out here in Norway, and considering the market size for Norway world wide is small then I'm betting it won't be long before we see full scale sales from other big ones, like Toyota or Peugot spewing out theirs.

Give it a year or two and you'll see the market flourish beyond what we have now.

Topic Nine-year old girl accidentally kills shooting instructor
Posted 30 Aug 2014 18:33

God forbid you give someone under 21 a beer in the US. We all know that kids under 21 aren't mature enough to handle alcohol. No chance anyone under 18 should be allowed to vote. No chance they have the maturity to understand the complexity of politics.

So you're not mature enough to vote or drink, but you're mature enough to operate a device developed with the sole purpose of taking a human life. Don't try to make me believe the UZI was developed as a hunting weapon, because the only thing Israel hunts are Arabs. This was a designed to be an efficient killer, and not only does the law allow putting it in a child's hands, there is no one there thinking that maybe this wasn't such a great idea. Guns are not for kids. If you can't teach your kid to keep their hands off your guns without letting them try it then I will honestly say that you failed as a parent. I grew up with a shotgun and an army issue assault rifle in my house. Only touched the assault rifle once and it didn't have any ammunition near it. Never touched the shotgun. I still respected them. I didn't need to shoot one to realise that this was some shit that I shouldn't fuck with.

Topic Why are civilians being killed in Gaza?
Posted 04 Aug 2014 17:25

This whole thing is being orchestrated by Hamas. They know with the iron dome that they can't defeat Israel. Their charter calls for the obliteration of all Jews and the US infidels. They want recognition as a legit organization. Israel and the USA are recognized democracies. Hammas is a terrorist organization. Women and children are dying because the terrorists keep putting their rockets in schools and hospitals and places of worship. Hamas is willing to sacrifice innocents to win public sympathy and promote Jews hatred. Israel went as far as to drop leaflets telling civilians to vacate the areas they struck. The ground forces were necessary to directly confront the Hamas and cut civilian causalities, and destroy the tunnels that were being used to attack Israel. The real culprit is Iran that is fueling this war and providing the rockets and weapons. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon be afraid. Be real afraid. People forget that years ago Iran declared war on the USA.

Palestine was never a country. When Israel was created in 1948 by UN charter it had belonged to the British as part of their empire. When the different factions of radical Muslims are not fighting the Jews they are fighting each other and have done so for thousands of years. The land of Israel is so small it occupies less than one tenth of one percent of the land Muslim nations possess. If Palestine wants its own land, why doesn't one of the Arab countries give up some of their land to them? When Israel was created the land was barren. They have transformed the country into the land of milk and honey. Now that it is converted, it is a prize. The Jews have been hated throughout their existence, not just by Hitler.

I agree with my friend Milik. If any country in the world was attacked the way Hamas has attacked Israel, they would receive universal support. If it were the US we would pound them into non existence.

1) Hamas was legally elected by the Palestine people. When that happened Israel started what was in fact a blockade of Gaza simply because they thought they could try to force Hamas to resign from government. A similarity would be like for instance if the US elected a new President that the world didn't like, full blockade of the entire US. No one going in or out and a wall being erected around the entire border. As for ship traffic, you would be stopped by foreign ships whenever you entered US waters. Nothing comes in, nothing comes out without Israel allowing it, until they built the tunnels. These tunnels were created to let every day items like clothes, shoes and diapers into Gaza. The situation of Gaza today would be pretty much the same as a Middle Ages siege of a castle or city.

2) Your argument about letting the Palestinians have their own country in the Middle Eastern desert is flawed. That would be similar as to when the settlers pushed the Native Americans away from their homeland and into terretory that was either barren or occupied by other tribes. Simply they were there first. Just because the UN created the state officially doesn't mean that it makes it any more right. Not to mention Jerusalem is the third most important city for Islam as a religion. Palestinians and Muslims where thrown out of their holy city because some politicians the felt bad said so. It's a ludicrous idea that will never happen again. Just imagine like dpw said; several US states being purged for white people, regardless how many generations you've been living there, and in comes Native Americans to take control. Let that happen to YOUR home and we'll see how happy you are about that afterwards. Given the mindset I've seen, heard and experienced about a lot of Americans the reactions wouldn't be all that different from Hamas'. That doesn't make it right, but try to put yourself in their situation and you'll understand why it's so easy to give support to Hamas and hate Israel as a concept.

Topic Why are civilians being killed in Gaza?
Posted 24 Jul 2014 06:26

I think my points are very valid. Hamas continues to use human shields. There was a cease for and they are the ones that broke it.

I do not disagree with DD at all about the Palestinians not having anywhere to go. I feel sorry for them that they have Hamas in their midst shooting rockets at someone who will shoot back. AND LIKE I SAID, if Israel had handled that right a long time ago there might not be a problem now.

Why do you always bring up Faux News? Who the hell watches that?

Elit, you can disagree with someone without calling their argument 'stupid'. I think you should adhere to a more civil policy.

When someone takes s stance not like yours you like to call them pro-Israeli. Why do you do that? That might make someone think your stance is anti-Israeli? I'm sure that's not your intention, is it?

Quite frankly, I don't feel like I am pro-either side. I am pro-Peace! I'd love to see them mutually quit shooting at one another. But I have enough common sense to know that when one shoots at the other, the other will defend themselves.

What I called stupid was this comment of yours

Europe doesn't have a great history for treating Jewish people so well, so their slant on Israel loses a lot of credibility with me.

If this is actually a valid argument then I can say that whenever you criticise Barack Obama then I can say that the US and especially the South haven't all that good a history towards people of African decent, so your arguments loses a lot of credibility. If you're gonna say European criticisism of Israel has little credibility, then make your point with facts and proper arguments and not subtley hint towards Europe in general being anti-semmetic and that that's the only reason we criticise Israel.

The country of Israel is an artificial concept created by the guilt from WWII. Creating an all-Jewish state in a region that have been inhabited by mostly Arabs and other ethnicities for almost 2500 years was a stupid idea. The state of Israel seized to exist 500 BC. The Palestinians deserve their own country considering they've been pushed away since the start of Israel. Of course the other Arab nations are gonna be pissed off when there are voices high up in the government that doesn't consider it a bad idea to remove fundamental rights like voting from non-Jewish Israelis.

The reason Hamas managed to gather such large support was because they did a lot of good work for the Palestinians. Removing corruption, building mosques and in general doing what they could to make Gaza a bit better place to be. Israel's response was to increase sanctions. Not even emergency aid from the likes of Red Cross gets through the coastal blockade. Israel is providing more than enough fuel for the fire. Hamas only needs to set the spark. Israel are just as guilty as Hamas in the deaths of their own people. They are willingly sacrificing a small amount of their own to justify attacking Gaza. Hamas is doing exactly the same, just sacrificing more people.

Topic Why are civilians being killed in Gaza?
Posted 23 Jul 2014 19:32

You know Elit. Europe doesn't have a great history for treating Jewish people so well, so their slant on Israel loses a lot of credibility with me.

That is pretty much the same as playing the race card and proving you have no real valid point. "They treated Jews badly before, so I'm sure they're doing it again". Guess that means that the US can't criticise anything a black man does, can it? Your argument is at best stupid, and that's what Israel has been doing for the last two decades. Instead of accepting that it's criticism against the Israeli POLITICS and not criticism against Jews as an ethnicity and religion, they decide to guilt trip Europe by calling any criticism of their politics for anti-semitism. It really proves that Israel, and in this case you, are grasping at straws when faced with the facts that they are pushing propaganda out to the world to make themselves seem a little bit less of a bad guy. Like DD's post said; the people of Gaza has nowhere to go. The "safe" areas are already stuffed full and they're not always that safe. Israel has bombed markets that had no Hamas activity before. Stop watching Faux News and the rest of the pro-Israel news and you might learn a thing or two.

Topic Why are civilians being killed in Gaza?
Posted 23 Jul 2014 09:16

There is an international outcry, but it's situated mostly in Europe, because Europe tends to be much more critical against Israel than the US news outlets(something which is really pissing off the pro-Israel and anti-anythingthathasanythingtodowithIslam groups). But as long as the US don't intervene nothing will happen. It has to go through the security council in the UN and it's not Russia or China putting down the veto, it's the US. Even when the rest of the world says that Israel is wrong, US still backs them up.

Hamas is indeed putting up rocket sites near schools and hospitals and residential areas, however Israel is having no second thoughts about bombing them to hell. They say that they give people ample of time to run away, but they know Hamas will execute any refuge that tries to sneak away. For the Palestinians it's basically do you think you can survive a bombing attack or do you think you can sneak out without Hamas shooting you. There are Palestinians blaming Hamas for this, however Hamas is acting like a good dictatorship and using terror to keep people silent. Those that speak to the media never do it while showing their faces and definetely not within earshot of other people.

However, all that said, Israel is making it damn easy for Hamas to recruit people. Gaza is pretty much on a lock down that would remind you of the siege of a castle in the Middle Ages. Nothing goes in or out without Israel controlling it, and right now it's only food and fuel that comes through. Essential items like diapers and clothes and everything else will need to be smuggled in through the tunnels that Israel is now blowing up. How difficult do you think it is for a Hamas recruiter to go to a poverished 18yo and say "look at the Israelis. They do so that your little sister can't get new clothes and that you can't eat properly." Add the illegal settlements and you won't have any problems recruiting young men without a future to your cause.

Secondly, it's not just Hamas that wants this war. There are several right wing people, like orthodox Jews and politicians, that are just as crazy as Hamas. They want the Palestinians to be more or less wiped out or at least deported to the other Arab states. The government continue to allow illegal settlements on the West Bank and press the Palestinians from the homes that they built. You can say what you want about Hamas being cunts, and you'll be right, but don't try for one second and make it seem like Israel as a state is anywhere near blameless. There are plenty of Israelis that loves Hamas because that gives Israel a reason to move in with military force.

As for foreign governments helping Hamas; not anymore. Egypt is too busy with it's own problems to even bother with Hamas. They may sympathize, but won't act. And several of the Arab states have brought forth drafts for peace that Israel has not even bothered to give a simple reply to. The right wing in Israel is powerful and they most certainly don't want the two state solution that the rest of the world thinks is a good idea. After all, God gave them the land...

Topic Brazil are going to win the World Cup!
Posted 12 Jul 2014 14:52

Brazil 0 Netherlands 1

Three minutes played and Holland go 1-0 up through a penalty after Robben was brought down in the box. It was a definite red card but the referee bottled it. Van Persie puts the penalty away and Brazil in trouble again.

Was a red card, but not a penalty. Infringement started and ended on the outside of the box. No chance that's a penalty. Add that de Guseman was in offside as he recieved the ball before he hit the ball in on Luis' head Netherlands got two goals that should have been disallowed. Add to Oscar being wrongfully booked for diving for what was a CLEAR penalty. Brasil has been horrendous, but not as terrible as the referee. Congratulations, Netherlands. Whatever you payed the ref it turned out to be enough.

Topic Farm Subsidies
Posted 12 Jul 2014 08:19

The US government currently pays certain farmers to not use their land for agriculture. Some argue that this practice is commodity market manipulation . Others claim that the government is maintaining price stability . Should this practice continue?

As mentioned, it's not price manipulation. If you go back a couple of hundred years you'd see that they would grow potatoes in a piece of land one year and then something different the next year and some would be completely deserted for a year. If you don't do this then you need to fertilize so much that you could eventually end up with a soil that has no nutrition at all and is as fruitful as the Sahara. This politic is pretty much to avoid that you have tons of food coming in one year and then very little coming in next year. End result is food shortage and increased prices.

And the main reason we need subsidies is because people complain about food prices. If you want to remove subsidies then allow farmers to get the majority of the profit or give them more money. It's as simple as that.

Topic Brazil are going to win the World Cup!
Posted 12 Jul 2014 08:10

I agree that is was very boring .... quiet .... yawn

jezus, Elit .... Brazil to beat the Netherlands?? confused1

Thiago Silva is back in defence for Brazil. He has been one of the best center backs in the world cup and add a Brazil that will need to come back and will want to give the fans something. They'll be lethal as long as they don't play Fred up front.

As for the final, Argentina cannot and should not win. It will be a disgrace for entertaining football if they win. Secondly, they're heavily reliant on Di Maria to produce something from the wing. The fact that he sat out the semi final with an injury tells me that if he plays tomorrow then he'll not be 100%. Add that Hummels just played the first half against Brazil and will be fresh, Boateng being Solid and Lahm being his usual self then you have a defence that will work hard and has the highest quality in the cup I don't think Argentina will be able to create much. They might be able to hold the ball, but Germany will press them high and stress them, and given Argentina doesn't have the most reliable defence(bar Mascherano and Zabaleta) then there can easily be mistakes. And with so many quality attacking midfielders we could be in for a memorable final.

Topic Brazil are going to win the World Cup!
Posted 09 Jul 2014 18:21

As expected the Netherlands chokes again! evil4

And thank goodness for that. Bar the 5-1 victory over Spain they have been utter shite the entire tournament. This have to be one of the most boring games of the world cup. I don't really think we can say good job defence, because considering the attacking qualities of both sides there should have been more goals. If Argentina doesn't step it up they're gonna find Germany very difficult. And with Thiago Silva back organising the Brazillian back four I think Brazil could very well beat Netherlands too.

Topic Brazil are going to win the World Cup!
Posted 08 Jul 2014 15:11

Don't think there's much to say to this other than that the only reason Brazil got the one goal is because Özil missed a big opportunity to get the 8th goal. If Germany plays like this on Sunday they'll take any team to the cleaners. Although Brazil were poor, I mean really poor, this was an outstanding performance that should have made both Netherlands and Argentina go "Oh fuck..."


Topic Brazil are going to win the World Cup!
Posted 04 Jul 2014 15:30

Brazil - if they win will be a very unjust champion, they are really really poor

Before today I would have agreed with you 100%. However I think we saw a bit of what we have all hoped Brazil would be, at least for the first 60 minutes or so. Thiago Silva and David Luiz looked well in the back and finally their fullbacks actually joined the game. Great attacking football, especially in the first half. In the second half they calmed down a bit trying to cruise in the 2-0 lead they had, and that's when Colombia like the little viper they are stung. A rightly awarded penalty allowed Colombia to pull one back, and despite and onslaught in the last minutes it wasn't enough.

Problem for Brazil is that Neymar who have been very important for them was carried off on a stretcher. Considering the injury was a knee in the back means it's probably more of a really hefty knock then something long term, however I'm struggling to reassure myself that Brazil could win against Germany without Neymar. Not because the rest of the team sucks, but I think because Germany is a well oiled machinery and in a match like this you need the little extra to put on behind them, especially now that Neuer has been the goalkeeper of the cup. Secondly Germany today weren't overwhelming, however they were always in control. I never got the sense that they didn't have an extra gear to put in against France, although both sides were rather poor. If Germany plays like they did against Portugal they'll send Brazil to the Bronze final.