Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: News Around The World
LOL :-D
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/social-europe-jobs/poland-wants-eu-complain-wto-over-russian-embargo-307859
How can be Poland so ..... ?(just "..." cos sokker censure and bans) So Europe sanctions against russia are ok, but russian against EU are bad, really funny.
(and we all know who start it)
(editado)
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/social-europe-jobs/poland-wants-eu-complain-wto-over-russian-embargo-307859
How can be Poland so ..... ?(just "..." cos sokker censure and bans) So Europe sanctions against russia are ok, but russian against EU are bad, really funny.
(and we all know who start it)
(editado)
I ask, because you write this sentence. And we have Charlie Hebdo (an thousands other institutions) who insult religion. And, for you, it's OK.
But, from second, when I post infos about islam threat, I'm accused about "islamophobia", "hate speech", and other funny things.
This is hypocrisy.
You are wrong. Calling you racist doesn't conflict with your freedom of speech. Censoring your racist comments would. Freedom of speech is the freedom to say things, not the freedom to say things without other saying something back. So, there's no hypocrisy.
If "Charlie Hebdo" can post anty-religioius caricatures, who insult religiuos believers, I can write that muslims is a threat, homosexualizm isn't normal, etc.
Exactly. Charlie can publish its caricatures, you can say muslims are a threat and homosexuality isn't normal, and I can say your statements about muslims and homosexuality are retarded. The three of us are free to speak our minds (not necesarily in Sokker forums, but more generally in societies with free speech).
But, from second, when I post infos about islam threat, I'm accused about "islamophobia", "hate speech", and other funny things.
This is hypocrisy.
You are wrong. Calling you racist doesn't conflict with your freedom of speech. Censoring your racist comments would. Freedom of speech is the freedom to say things, not the freedom to say things without other saying something back. So, there's no hypocrisy.
If "Charlie Hebdo" can post anty-religioius caricatures, who insult religiuos believers, I can write that muslims is a threat, homosexualizm isn't normal, etc.
Exactly. Charlie can publish its caricatures, you can say muslims are a threat and homosexuality isn't normal, and I can say your statements about muslims and homosexuality are retarded. The three of us are free to speak our minds (not necesarily in Sokker forums, but more generally in societies with free speech).
you can say muslims are a threat and homosexuality isn't normal, and I can say your statements about muslims and homosexuality are retarded
but dont try saying something against jews, it is always for ban :-D
but dont try saying something against jews, it is always for ban :-D
So, we have nolimiited freedom of word, or not?
I ask, because you write this sentence. And we have Charlie Hebdo (an thousands other institutions) who insult religion. And, for you, it's OK.
But, from second, when I post infos about islam threat, I'm accused about "islamophobia", "hate speech", and other funny things.
This is hypocrisy.
Or we should limited so called "freedom of speech", or we can talking everything. If "Charlie Hebdo" can post anty-religioius caricatures, who insult religiuos believers, I can write that muslims is a threat, homosexualizm isn't normal, etc.
In my opinion you can write/insult whoever you want.
Don't confuse me with some other censor that writes here.
We should be free to write whatever we want (*).
(*)yes, kids should read it too.
PS: obviously Don enzo is right showing the difference between a critic and a censorship.
(editado)
I ask, because you write this sentence. And we have Charlie Hebdo (an thousands other institutions) who insult religion. And, for you, it's OK.
But, from second, when I post infos about islam threat, I'm accused about "islamophobia", "hate speech", and other funny things.
This is hypocrisy.
Or we should limited so called "freedom of speech", or we can talking everything. If "Charlie Hebdo" can post anty-religioius caricatures, who insult religiuos believers, I can write that muslims is a threat, homosexualizm isn't normal, etc.
In my opinion you can write/insult whoever you want.
Don't confuse me with some other censor that writes here.
We should be free to write whatever we want (*).
(*)yes, kids should read it too.
PS: obviously Don enzo is right showing the difference between a critic and a censorship.
(editado)
How can be Poland so ..... ?(just "..." cos sokker censure and bans)
You can write directly - stupid. Because it's a stupidity.
And one thing - not "Poland", just "polish gouverment". That's correctly.
And second thing - it's a old news.
You can write directly - stupid. Because it's a stupidity.
And one thing - not "Poland", just "polish gouverment". That's correctly.
And second thing - it's a old news.
You are wrong. Calling you racist doesn't conflict with your freedom of speech. Censoring your racist comments would. Freedom of speech is the freedom to say things, not the freedom to say things without other saying something back. So, there's no hypocrisy.
OK, I wrote it wrong. Other - Caricatures are "freedom of speech", news about islam threat are banned from reason "hate of speech". That's that hipocrisy.
OK, I wrote it wrong. Other - Caricatures are "freedom of speech", news about islam threat are banned from reason "hate of speech". That's that hipocrisy.
As there is in France, in Nederlands, in UK, in USA ... What else?
ok and what about this ?
http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_dutch-opposition-says-has-documents-proving-turkey-sent-arms-to-syrian-jihadists_370205.html
The Dutch opposition Christian Democratic Party (CDA) announced that it has confidential documents proving that Turkey had sent weapons to al-Qaeda militants in Syria and that it conveyed the documents to the Dutch government, according to a BBC Turkish report published on Sunday.
Turkey, member of NATO ! Supporting terrorists.
So now... 2 possibilities:
1. The Dutch are lair!
2. Turkish violated laws, should be expel from NATO asap.
3. EU and Turkish support al-qaede, it is just secret mission.
(editado)
http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_dutch-opposition-says-has-documents-proving-turkey-sent-arms-to-syrian-jihadists_370205.html
The Dutch opposition Christian Democratic Party (CDA) announced that it has confidential documents proving that Turkey had sent weapons to al-Qaeda militants in Syria and that it conveyed the documents to the Dutch government, according to a BBC Turkish report published on Sunday.
Turkey, member of NATO ! Supporting terrorists.
So now... 2 possibilities:
1. The Dutch are lair!
2. Turkish violated laws, should be expel from NATO asap.
3. EU and Turkish support al-qaede, it is just secret mission.
(editado)
So, what of that 3 logical possibilities you will choose ?
You dont want read it cos you know you can not say it is russian crap article, but Dutch.... :-)
So, have you some opinion on this situation ? I am listening ....
1. The Dutch are liar!
2. Turkish violated laws, should be expel from NATO asap.
3. EU and Turkish support al-qaede, it is just secret mission.
(editado)
You dont want read it cos you know you can not say it is russian crap article, but Dutch.... :-)
So, have you some opinion on this situation ? I am listening ....
1. The Dutch are liar!
2. Turkish violated laws, should be expel from NATO asap.
3. EU and Turkish support al-qaede, it is just secret mission.
(editado)