Hystery

To all people saying it's a life and it's killing a human being to do an abortion: an embryo is NOT a human being, nor a life. At this state, it's just a natural process of reproduction, just a bunch of cells grouping up and duplicating, without consciousness nor personal needs. If anything, it could be compared to a parasite. Abortion can only happen during a short time after the fertilization, and thus the baby isn't developped. It doesn't have a head, nor a face, nor limbs, nor organs, nothing. It's just a bunch of cells sticked together, nothing more. So I don't see, from this point, how it is "killing a human being" once you accept this fact. Or, if we go that way, killing bees is wrong because it's life, killing spiders is wrong because it's life, etc. Besides, you all talk about "teen moms" and unaware people. But have you ever heard of accidents, when a comdom breaks? Or rape? Do you think someone's life should be ruined by an early baby just because a comdom broke or they got raped? Do you think it's normal that the mother should be forced to keep the baby and will see the face of her rapist each time she'll look at it? I don't think so, and it's inhuman to think that a woman should be forced to do such. You talk about killing a life, but you should learn to respect other's lives in the first place. You sir, are my favorite reply in this entire topic. Why? Let's see. You say that abortion is killing a life and all that. For that, I gave my opinion above. You talk about respect of life? Why don't you respect other people's lives then by their freedom of choice when it comes to abortion? Same, I gave my opinion above. And finally, you say that if you can't raise your child, you can always give it away. Do you think it's better than abortion? Really? So, you give birth and give the baby away to an orphanage. Do you think this baby will be happy? To be left without parents? In an orphanage where we know that a good part of the kids turn bad? So you consider that instead of abortion (which is not killing a life, since it's not a life, see above for details), we should let a kid live a life or torment? Sorry but no. THAT, is wrong, not abortion.

Or very funny, it all depends. Happy birthday nonetheless.

Considering the small size of a drone, I think it would be easy for a small group of 2 or 3 persons to walk through the forest and stop nearby a nuclear site, and send the guided drone towards the plant. I doubt any radar could detect such a small object (can you imagine if they could? All radars would detect large birds and all), and visual contact is hard to make at night. Also, as I stated, police officers are forbidden to take down the drone as long as it is over the nuclear site, to avoid an accident such as a fire, an explosion, or human casualties when the drone falls down, so they would have to wait until the drone leaves the area to intervene. But even then, shooting it down might not be the proper solution, because we couldn't investigate the device to try and find evidences of who is behind those events.

It is not the company exploiting the nuclear plant that is using the drones, hence it is quite concerning. The electricity company filed a claim to the police, as stated in one of the articles. We have no idea who is doing this and why.

Hey! Coming to you guys today to introduce you to a very strange thing happening lately in my country (France), thought it could be interesting to know and to look for answers or ways to counter those cheeky drones. Since the 5th of October, several of our nuclear plants were flown by small drones from 50 centimeters to 2 meters of span. It's not known if they were carrying cameras or were just flying over the plants, and none knows who did that and why. One interesting detail is that it is not an isolated event, since two very distant plants were overflown by drones in the same day at the same time, pointing out an organized group acting all over the territory. For the record, our nuclear plants all have a special department of our police which is charged of the security of the plant and its surroundings, staying on the area 24/7. However, they are forbidden to take down a flying object as it could crash and set something on fire, explode or worse, drones included. So, since they can't do anything, we can just witness those drones flying over the plants without being able to do anything on the moment. Greenpeace was first suspected to be the author of those events, however they denied being implied in this affair. The most common fear amongst population is simple: if a drone can fly over our plants without the police being allowed (maybe fairly) to take it down, a terrorist organization could easily attach a small explosive device on the drone and make it explode over the targeted nuclear plant. Even though the government claims our plants are safe and could resist even to an airplane crash, it is a possibility that those drones could be scouters for further activities from those mysterious people. Here you can read different articles from the press: http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/30/7135553/france-doesnt-know-whos-flying-drones-over-its-nuclear-power-plants http://rt.com/news/200887-france-drones-nuclear-plants/ http://qz.com/289268/who-is-flying-drones-over-french-nuclear-plants/ http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/31/more-drones-spotted-over-french-nuclear-power-stations More links can be found on Google, for curious people. So, who do you think could be behind those events? An environmental organization such as Greenpeace or another? Or badly intentioned people? If that is an environmental organization, isn't it going too far to fly large drones over dangerous sites? And how could we possible take down those drones without risking an accident? /discuss EDIT: 5 other nuclear plants all over the country were overflown during a single night, on friday between 7PM and midnight. EDIT2: The police have been allowed to shoot the drones on sight. Maybe they will be able to catch one still in shape for investigation.

Vision ENB IV 2015 ENB by Murphy IcEnhancer 3.0

I've heard on the news that is indeed a private company that was charged of this operation. That's why some people are worried, because in a few years, it's one of those private companies that should send NASA astronauts to the ISS.

I don't think he was going to post any link, he simply looks like he wants some feedback, he even said this would be available for LCPDFR members in addition to his clan, so... Back to the topic, the cars look rather nice, very neat work.

France feels the immigration towards UK, because a lot of immigrants go through the country to cross the sea and reach the kingdom (http://www.channel4.com/news/calais-illegal-immigration-uk-france-deal-theresa-may for curious people). I can tell it's quite messy here, police needs to evacuate squatters everyday, they invade and destroy properties. I think there are two kinds of immigrants. Those who hope to have a better life elsewhere and actually try to integrate into the community they arrived in, and those who are just here to profit of the land they want to go. Those immigrants crossing Europe towards UK are of the second kind.

To be honest, I think that Vietnam war (just like Afghanistan war) was a failure because soldiers had no knowledge of the environment, while natives had a perfect knowledge of it. For Vietnam, they knew the jungle, how to fight in it, how to hide and ambush in it, just like the same in Afghanistan with the large mountains and caves network. Though, if your government ever became "tyranical", they would still know their own country and how to fight in it, so... you get my point.

Sheesh dude, you need to stop taking things out of context. Did I -ever- mention UK, even only once? No I didn't. I don't know what you all have to keep talking about UK, but here is some news, UK isn't the only place guns are banned. So, did I choose to dismiss those statistics? No, since I wasn't even talking about them.

Now that's an argument I like to see. Why? Because it actually can work the other way around. Right now, guns are allowed, right? Did shootouts got prevented or got stopped because someone shot the guy? As far as I've heard in the news, it's always the police that either manage to control the guy or to get him down, never a civilian. All is said.

Actually a lot of countries have a constitution, including mine, with a specific council that studies every law to make sure they do not violate it. We just don't have anything about guns. And if you decide to go on the "It's because we freed ourselves with guns and arms", I'd like to tell you that in my country, France, we had one of the bloodiest revolutions in Europe. Louis XIV, does it ring a bell to you? Guillotine on public place. And even with that bloody period of our era (1789), we learned to live -without- guns, because they aren't necessary. That, my friend, is the fact. But thanks for judging me and what I'm typing without knowing anything of me. And you talk about having no facts? Makes me laugh quite a bit. Well to be honest I wasn't specifically refering to the UK, since I am totally not interested in that country, so I wouldn't take the risk to compare the US to the UK on this. I was mostly talking on a general basis compared to where I live. Besides paybacks with guns we have now and then (like, 4 or 5 times a year, probably 10 at most in the whole country, 70 million inhabitants), people don't fear to be shot, mostly because it is -forbidden- to carry a gun in public places. EDIT: I just found a website comparing stats on crime rate and all, comparing the US to France. Here are the results: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime I think it talks for itself.

Yeah, because people barging into your house with a gun are obviously there to kill you, and not just to scare you out to rob you. And then you'd play the hero with your gun, taking the chance -you- would get killed just to feel better with your big weapon? That's a bit silly IMO. Besides, if you are so convinced that guns help people fighting crime, please tell me why in other countries where a simple citizen can't buy a gun so easily the crime rate isn't higher, and maybe even lower than the US for the same population mass?

Though as I stated above, most men/women with a gun have no training. Meaning they are just as dangerous for society than the robber you talked about just above. If I was in front of a robber with a gun, and a guy with a gun with no proper training, I would be afraid of both, actually even more of the guy, because he could shoot me by accident.

Glad we agree on that point =) That's why I consider that a citizen -could- have the right to carry a gun, but it would require for them to be eligible to the permit/license for it. For example, a civilian wanting to own a gun would have to follow a detailed course about guns as well as training courses, how to use a gun, how to maintain, desassamble and reassamble it, as well as a psychological test and obviously with no police record. If all the requirements are met and if the person followed the courses correctly, then they could be allowed to have a gun.

I will reformulate my opinion. I consider that only law enforcements should have the right to carry a gun, for the simple reason that they have the training, knowledge, psychological preparation and they know how, when, and why use a weapon. Citizens carrying guns don't have that. And no, I don't consider shooting regularly on paper targets as training and knowledge about guns. If it was, everyone could be a police officer.

I believe gun ownership in the US shouldn't be tolerated, like in many other countries. You believe that guns can prevent crimes or help defend yourself? I answer that: since when answering to violence by violence is the answer? If someone threatens me with a weapon to get my money, I give them my money, what's the point of trying to be a hero by defending yourself with a weapon if it's to end in the obituaries of the newspaper? It's simple actually, many US states allow people to have gun, we always hear about shootouts over there. Here in France, people need a permit to have a gun (with many restrictions), and need to register their guns to the officials and, strangely enough, we almost never have shootouts like in the US. Facts are there. If you trust your police, then you don't need a gun. If you have a gun, then you don't trust the police to help you when you need it. Do you consider that your police officers are incompetent to the point to force you having a gun to defend yourself?

Missouri City/LCPD and LCPD Highway Patrol for me. Those skin packs are way too good. '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

I would so lose my shit if someone told me how to do my job like this. I mean, who he thinks he is to pull over a police officer and lecture him about the law and stuff? Is that the world we are living in? People questioning if cops are right to drive an unmarked car? Who cares about this seriously, besides those dumb guys like this one? EDIT: I actually share the opinion of one of the comments below the video on the youtube page: "So this guy wants to enforce all little bullshit laws? This cop should follow this asshole everywhere he goes with a marked car and pull him over for one MPH over and whenever he signals too early or too late. This officer seemed like "one of the good ones" leave him alone." Exactly what I'd do.