1_man_army

To me AV isn't the ideal system but I would much prefer it to FPTP so I'll vote in favour of it. The reason AV was chosen for the referendum was because the Tories felt that they could get enough votes out against it, clever (and somewhat cynical) political planning I suppose since a truly PR system would batter the Tories.

I have no interest in an out-dated, descriminatory and futile institution. So no I won't be watching the ceremony, having a street party or doing anything related directly to the wedding. Unsurprising views from a republican huh? I hate being the minority in the argument and I know this whole extravaganza will undoubtedly benefit the royals for the time being so Friday is a doubley poor day for me.

This is essentially the idea here. While there are some issues associated with such a ban, given the small number of burka-wearers in France targeting them to ensure protection of French values and culture is not too bad an idea. Freedom of religion does not extend to that which is harmful to others. Which is why Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world, and the vast majority of Muslims live outside of its original Arabian countries. But hey, if you want to cover "I'm fed up with Islam" by saying "The world is fed up with Islam", go for it. fed up with radical islam. islam is a great religion all in all. it preaches peace/prosperity and all that good stuff. radical islam kills and it MUST be eradicated. ...and banning the burqa achieves this how? Hint: It doesn't. By targeting such a small section of society (instead of trying to engage it) all you do is alientate Muslims in general which just feeds into the radical ideologues that already preach that the west is anti-Islamic.

That is the problem by banning the burqa you will not suddenly free women who are forced to wear it, instead you're creating a circumstance where they will be prisoners in their own homes. What western democracies should be doing is criminalising husbands/fathers/ family members who force women to wear the burqa and at the same time attempt to create an open and understanding atmosphere where women can come forward and report people who are forcing them to wear it against their will. Banning the burqa only serves to further alienate a section of society in a poorly thought out attempt to squash a problem that affects a tiny proportion of the population. Of couse, some women choose to wear the burqa without any coersion from others and they should have the right to do so. I also find it interesting that the French law doesn't specifically mention the burqa in its text, instead referring to anything covering the face, it does however, only really apply to the burqa in practice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n94URvpQOAc

Maybe I'm misremembering, but before runite came out, didn't Bluerose have a monopoly on adamantite and high-level mithril armor smithing, too? This might have been before they changed the smithing levels so that they would be more reasonable - there was a time (I think) where you had to have insanely high smithing levels to make even basic things, so smithing was extremely tedious because you couldn't make anything remotely useful as you leveled up. Yeah that sounds about right to me. I remember she had to have loads of mule accounts to hold all her smithing stuff before the item bank. People used to be obsessed by Adamite and Runeite when it first came out, it's quite funny reflecting on that lol.

It still amazes me how one desperate man setting himself alight in Tunisia is the spark that eventually burns down not one but two hardnosed, autocratic regimes. The people protesting in Egypt were masterful, they absolutely ran the police out of Cairo early on, remained defiant in the face of state thuggery and they didn't fall into the traps set by the regime who tried to create splits in the movement. If the reaction and influence of the Tunisian revolution is anything to go by, then this could have big knock-on effects upon other autocratic regimes in the arab world. A great day for Egypt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi

Damn this is all a blast from the past. I almost forgot about how Bluerose ran Rune smithing when it first started. People were so desperate for Rune gear early on. Come to think about it, this is the first time in years that RS has even crossed my mind although I doubt my character is still available and if it is I doubt I'd remember the password for it.

I doubt it, FIFA has increasingly taken the stance that they want to grow the sport globally and that is why they have taken so many recent world cups to new host countries. The trend started in USA in 94 and has followed since with Japan/South Korea, South Africa and now the 2 new host nations. It fits in with their general schtick in recent years although I might be wrong in that. Personally, I would have preferred Spain/Portugal over the other nominees - no other bid could offer not just one but two stadiums with a 90,000+ capacity. It could have easily become the highest attended world cup ever. They also have a great infrastructure already in place but that probably worked against them as it wouldn't fit in with all this legacy aims business. I had no real preference for the 2022 bid, USA hosted in 94 so to me that would have ruled them out and the same would apply to Japan and South Korea. That would have left only Qatar and the Aussies, I personally would have went Qatar in that case only because the vastness of Australia could cause a transportation headache Interestingly, the guy who Panorama named as one of the corrupt officials, Issa Hayatou, is reportedly the only person who voted for England's bid (other than England's own delegate).

edit - nevermind

When I was at uni we published a copy of Hound of the Baskervilles using text from Project Gutenburg, it's a really useful resource. That being said, I tend to avoid translations of foreign language works as some of the translations aren't great.

I'm a bit more reserved online. My sense of humour is quite harsh but it doesn't really work online because you can't really put it in context. I'm a bit less argumentative online (nowadays anyway), I can debate/argue for the sake of it offline but online now tend to get bored easier. I also find it easier to be nice to people online than I do normally, I have no idea why.

That's why I'm here. :) Lol to loathe me, yourself or both of us?

Personally, I just hate everyone. The whole OT experience is just an exercise in mass loathing, especially self-loathing :razz: .

The funnest thing about this is that the ACS Law boss was recieving MP3's through his emal account. Tut tut :shame: .

A gun doesn't scare a criminal away. See: Use all the "reason" and "logic" you want; the statistics don't lie. Incidentially, swimming pools are statistically around 15 times more dangerous then guns in terms of accidential deaths. I really don't want to jump into this debate too much but I'd be interested to see what is considered an accidental death in relation to gun violence. For example, a stray bullet that hits a civilian in a drive-by shooting was still meant for somebody (just not the actual recipient) - can that really be classed as an accidental shooting? You were still trying kill somebody. A shooting where the wrong person is killed - like a case of mistaken identity - isn't really an accidental shooting to me atleast. My point really is, how are accidental shootings quantified in this case?

Could you link to the article / website that came from? Come on OldJoe you know as well as I do that it was blatant electioneering from both sides. History shows time and time again that when times are tough economically people tend to either blame or resent immigrants (or other minority groups). Politicians in an election campaign will inevitably exploit that. I'm by no means saying the UK's immigration policy is brilliant but Labour and The Tories were just pandering to what they thought people would react favourably to - the Labour policy wasn't well defined and the Tory policy was and is just unfeasable. Neither has a decent solution. The Lib Dems had better (but not perfect) policies on immigration but they weren't populist immigration policies (I really reacted well to the idea of looking at it on a regional level).

The idea that Mexican violence causes violence across the American border is a myth. For example, Juarez is Mexico's most dangerous city (to the extent to which it is often compared to Bahgdad) and is right across the border from El Paso which is America's second safest city. It isn't even in the interests of the Mexican cartels to commit acts across the border as it would bring so much attention on them from various branches of American law enforcement. In fact, much of the blame for Mexico's violence is the result of the United States - every year thousands of weapons flow from the US to the Mexican drug cartels and the high demand for illegal drugs in the US is why the Mexican cartels in the first place. The only impact the Mexican violence has on US border towns is that people wrongly perceive that there is a spillover which can effect investment in these areas. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10779151

America isn't that politically diverse, you have a right wing which lurches further to the right every year and a centrist party which is also drifting to the right. I wouldn't say that is too diverse. I agree whole-heartedly with your last point though, they're just playing the game and they'll go out of their way to disagree over anything. Democrats are drifting to the right? Yeah...right. I Wonder why gay marriage is legal in some states and the president is pushing for public healthcare? I should have prefaced that by say some elements are drifting to the right. You just need to look at the Bluedog democrats to see what I'm talking about. I think it would also be interesting to compare and contrast the positions of democratic presidents/candidates from years gone by to illustrate my point. Just look at the extremely watered down healthcare bill that was passed by Obama, it sounds similar in some ways to Nixon's plan - (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx). The Democrats may seem way to the left from a current American perspective but in reality they aren't that far to the left, especially compared to the Democrats of years gone by.

America isn't that politically diverse, you have a right wing which lurches further to the right every year and a centrist party which is also drifting to the right. I wouldn't say that is too diverse. I agree whole-heartedly with your last point though, they're just playing the game and they'll go out of their way to disagree over anything.

It's a complete non-issue and it amazes me that it is such a big deal - there is no legal or legitimate moral/ethical reason for opposing the building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVrWugBOb6I&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHMafszsnaE

In England and Wales, not the UK as a whole. Scotland and Northern Ireland both have systems of their own.

I had to look him up and found this little snippet: Anyone who publishes that is fine by me.

Wouldn't it be a bit difficult to tap when your hands are nailed to a big wooden cross?