dingformung

I'm glad I don't have to deal with the vinyl

You OK? I'm worried you're not You seem batshit crazy

^good and proper glitch no doubt, excellent 100% i found a video that's 100% cruel to animals:

The Skin of the Wolf Good film.

^oops, entirely wrong thread, my mistake

The Skin of the Wolf Good film.

Dunno, only thing that looks doctored to me is the branch at the upper side but that might be the light that falls in weirdly that makes it appear so because it is placed at a spot where someone who would put it in in post wouldn't place it because it's compositionally a very weird place to locate that branch. I think what makes the pic look weird is the colours. Everything looks very pink and sweet and highly saturated but worn out at the same time, that reminds on Twin Peaks

Great idea to use a 360 degrees camera for a rollercoaster ride. If I was ultrarich I would own such a camera I wonder what software these guys use to chose the right 180 degrees angle out of the 360 degrees available. Seems that he chose the sun as a fixed point

He pressures Europe to weaken it's relationships with Russia and to threaten it by huge build-up of arms but at the same time wants to be friends with Putin. Also he acts as if there is a real threat that Russia will attack Europe. Why does this crackpot always get away with his incoherence

Dunno, I remember I liked this thread. It seemed odd and random to me so I thought it's great that it exists. But somehow it makes me sad and annoyed at the same time by now.

have posted way too much on watmm lately for no good reason itnernte is bad for u edit:

How can u enjoy this if thers poveryt

I guess the algorithms will become better and consider the strive for the new humans have. Some more, some less of course, but this data can probably extracted from the recorded usage pattern of the consumer.

tis real good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUYEs7MNy1w

What makes you think so? Asylum right is an important constitutional achievement and every application for asylum status should be looked at fairly following the set of criteria that were developed for that purpose. And Sweden can't be selective about people who have asylum status. Everyone who seeks asylum and is proven to be legitimately persecuted for political reasons or is a war refugee etc. should be let in as a matter of course. However migration doesn't equal asylum. And there surely are people that come for good reasons but won't pass the criteria and hence aren't eligible asylees, especially from South America. Should they not get a chance? How do you tell a "good hard working" immigrant from a "bad criminal" immigrant? Crime is often a result of lack of other opportunities and it's a shame that South America has so much struggle with all the typical consequences of poverty. Let's not forget that these conditions partly were caused by actions of the Western world. And in my opinion it makes much more sense to fight the causes of flight Western nations generate with their politics rather than to seal off and forget the negative impacts the industrial world has on developing countries. South America is doing well considering how the US treated this continent for years, overthrowing democratically elected governments and replacing them with installed militant dictatorships. This happens all over the world, mostly led by the US and supported by EU countries. So Western nations actually have a responsibility to handle refugees and economy migrants as they generate causes of flight. And if someone from South America whose Swedish citizenship is still pending commits a serious crime I'm sure that person will be deported. the very last phrase is the crucial bit that is missing from our legislation currently (not missing, we just have a few too many cases where it hasn't been implemented well, which is why I don't think the policies are well implemented) otherwise you're correct imo... great post you condensed it to choosing between two risks and outlined one of them (being for stronger immigration laws risks declining entrance to "good immigrants"). the other side of the coin is that being for weaker immigration laws risks opening up to "bad immigrants" or to skip the good/bad dichotomy maybe immigrants with different value systems to the norm (different and static to the point that where it reates problems). so u get to pick ur poison n that's a good thing u kno.. we could argue the details of both positions but imo they are both valid and to decide just how valid they are in different settings is why we have democracy I guess iunno.. I'm getting ranty Actually when talking about "good" vs "bad" immigrants I chose to use quotation marks to show that it's not that simple. My point is that a lot of social problems some of the lower class immigrants bring are partly the result of the influence Western nations have on the countries of origin so there is a responsibility of Western countries to accept migration not only out of hardcore economical egocentric reasons but also out of humanitarian reasons and responsibility. And if countries like Sweden want to reduce migration they should help the countries of origin to become places where more people have a chance of a good life by stopping wars, by development aid, by stopping exploitation and by reducing environmental damage caused by their industries rather than by closing the borders. And if anyone commits serious crimes they of course need to be punished. I'm not sure how much of the crime in Sweden is related to migration and if it's really that much of an uncontrollable problem that it would justify hardening the migration laws drastically. I think it's hardly possible to get a citizenship if you committed a crime that's worse than say stealing. Criminality is most of the time related to difficult socioeconomic conditions. Why not fight these instead of characterizing certain groups of people as useless or incompatible? It's good that Sweden has relatively easy migration laws (even though I'm not even sure if that is really the case anymore). Mass migration can only be successfully fought by reducing the causes of flight. I think I'm repeating myself quite a lot

dope

What makes you think so? Asylum right is an important constitutional achievement and every application for asylum status should be looked at fairly following the set of criteria that were developed for that purpose. And Sweden can't be selective about people who have asylum status. Everyone who seeks asylum and is proven to be legitimately persecuted for political reasons or is a war refugee etc. should be let in as a matter of course. However migration doesn't equal asylum. And there surely are people that come for good reasons but won't pass the criteria and hence aren't eligible asylees, especially from South America. Should they not get a chance? How do you tell a "good hard working" immigrant from a "bad criminal" immigrant? Crime is often a result of lack of other opportunities and it's a shame that South America has so much struggle with all the typical consequences of poverty. Let's not forget that these conditions partly were caused by actions of the Western world. And in my opinion it makes much more sense to fight the causes of flight Western nations generate with their politics rather than to seal off and forget the negative impacts the industrial world has on developing countries. South America is doing well considering how the US treated this continent for years, overthrowing democratically elected governments and replacing them with installed militant dictatorships. This happens all over the world, mostly led by the US and supported by EU countries. So Western nations actually have a responsibility to handle refugees and economy migrants as they generate causes of flight. And if someone from South America whose Swedish citizenship is still pending commits a serious crime I'm sure that person will be deported.

the American Standard Revised Version has kept the word in the familiar combination "tables of stone" (Ex 24:12, etc.), but elsewhere (Pr 3:3;7:3; Isa 30:8; Jer 17:1; Hab 2:2; Lu 1:63) has replaced "table" by "tablet," a change made by the English Revised Version only in Isa 30:8; Lu 1:63.

nice catch:) IIII just doesn't look right should be IV I'm not religious but can't get over how the kjv bible now says and has always said: exodus 34:1 - And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest. Tables? Not Tablets anymore or ever? I remember reading this verse growing up. Always Tablets. Now my mom's 40 year old kjv bible has changed to Tables. I guess Tables would be more practical. Eat and be reminded of what Good you need to do in life at every meal. Be the Light that radiates unconditional Love and have Fun:) So what seems more likely: A) Someone has surreptitiously changed all the KJV bibles in the world (including yer dear old mam’s, in the dead of night or when she was out for tea) OR B) You have a shit memory. Or to be fair C) there are various translations.

lol

Isn't addressing issues part of dialogue?

I was mostly responding to edit