Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: martinuzz on March 24, 2017, 10:34:48 am

In another case he is a suspect. He is suspected of having more weed in stock in his coffeeshops than allowed. This is a red herring, and the government knows that. Every last coffeeshop always has too much in stock, because it is not logistically possible to keep to the limit of 200 grammes. You average Joe coffeeshop over here sells that in a few hours, a popular coffeeshop sells that in 30 minutes. He is also suspected of moneylaundry, related to the overstocking.

Protip: just because the crime is not prosecuted, doesn't mean it's legal. He's violated the law on legally selling drugs, and thus he's an illegal drug dealer who totally and completely deserves to rot in prison for destroying the fabric of society.

This is sarcasm right?

Quote from: Antioch on March 24, 2017, 09:30:43 am

Quote from: Azzuro on March 24, 2017, 09:23:53 am

Quote from: Covenant on March 23, 2017, 12:21:41 pm

Look at Brussels' own mayor, saying that all their mosques are controlled by Salafists (unsurprising when they're all funded by the Saudis, but of course no one wants to talk about that). So the answer isn't to sit there and whine about it, the answer is to shut those mosques down or to take firm control of them. In some countries, like Singapore, all mosques' Friday sermons are prepared and distributed by a government office in advance. I don't think that's an unreasonable step for our governments to take given that people are continually dying because of Islamic extremism.

That which you are implying is not true. While in Singapore, we do have a government statutory board (MUIS) that incorporates the office of the Mufti which publishes khutbah, the mosques do not literally have to follow them word-by-word, and several imams omit portions of it during prayers.

Furthermore, attempting to regulate Islam is going to backfire spectacularly in Europe at least. Europe does not have the same degree of social integration between Muslims and non-Muslims, and Muslims are under-represented in European governments and legislature. Governments imposing any sort of control over Islamic practice will be seen as anti-Islam oppression, and will merely provide more fodder for terrorist propaganda.

Here in the Netherlands the Turkish government literally pays the imams of Turkish mosques.

I think forbidding foreign governments from sponsoring religious organisations is a very reasonable and necessary measure.

I doubt that law would pass parliament. Catholics still have quite a bit of influence, albeit dwindling. The north of the country might be protestant or reformed, the south is still a bastion of catholicism. Don't forget that most (if not all) priests of catholic churches are paid by a foreign government as well (the Vatican)

I don't see why the Vatican should be an exception to our separation of religion and state.

Anyone reminded of the Canadian Parliament shooting? Thankfully it seems the attacker in this case never had chance of making it that far into the House of Commons.

Well it's kinda hard to shoot up parliament without a gun.

British parliament session has been interrupted because there currently is a shootout going on outside it.

Shouldnt that be impossible, because there are almost no guns in UK?

Is this supposed to be some pro guns lobby?

Anyway, the POLICE shot someone who stabbed an agent.

Quote from: Sergarr on March 22, 2017, 04:56:02 am

Apparently Trump has gone back on his promise to build Keystone XL pipeline with American steel only. There is also Russian steel there now. Traitor!

Dutch ING bank withdrew it's involvement in the project a few days ago. The Dakota project has a total outstanding loan of 2.5 billion dollars with 17 banks. They had an outstanding loan with ING for 120 million dollars. The ING sold the loan to an 'unnamed party that encourages a respectful dialogue with the Sioux and other involved parties'. They're the second Dutch bank that withdraws from the project in response to public pressure. ABN AMRO already withdrew from it a few months ago.

Why is that pipeline such an issue anyway.

Obama even said this:

"for years, the Keystone pipeline has occupied what I, frankly, consider an overinflated role in our political discourse. It became a symbol too often used as a campaign cudgel by both parties rather than a serious policy matter. And all of this obscured the fact that this pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others."

Quote from: Antioch on March 18, 2017, 07:57:44 am

How does that change anything about it being quite dubious to rank candidates on their ability to win the election?

I was very specifically limiting that qualification to the issue of candidacy and yes, if you win the election, by definition you are the best candidate, that being someone standing for election and then actually winning an election.

In a functioning democracy, that also has some loose connection to being actually good at the office.

(...)

That has to be some pretty darn loose connection. I seriously doubt Al Gore would have messed up the United States foreign affairs the way Bush did.

Quote from: Helgoland on March 18, 2017, 10:03:21 am

It's a shame that Republicans have such a visceral hatred of Iran. If they were a bit more detached on the issue, the West might be able to slowly tilt towards Iran...

To be fair it's a shame the Iranian hardliner have such a visceral hatred of America.

So what terrible things did Iran actually do in recent times?

Quote from: muldrake on March 18, 2017, 05:54:10 am

Quote from: Greiger on March 17, 2017, 12:28:22 pm

In 2016 there were two people almost everyone universally loathed.  An evil woman who's defense against controversy is being too incompetent to handle more than 1 email, let alone the presidency, and a bold faced liar that is possibly the most corrupt and incompetent buisnessman in the world that does not believe in facts, and has likely never set foot in a science classroom.

Thank you for stating the truth, and frankly, I am sick of people who look at this factual situation and can then, with a straight face, conclude that everyone who voted opposite of the way they did is a literal Nazi and that they must have been motivated by nothing but pure evil, rather than simply having made the best choice they thought they had.

Hillary was simply the worst Presidential candidate fronted by one of the two major parties in the U.S. in my lifetime, and that is not my opinion, it is an objective fact, since she actually lost to the second-worst Presidential candidate fronted by one of the two major parties in the U.S.

Do you just define good canidate by ability to win?

If we define candidates by their ability to win, then Adolf Hitler and Erdogan are examples of good candidates......