1_man_army

This. Although I did have a good laugh. Silly Americans getting trolled IRL. Would you have had a laugh if it was someone from your country? That would be funny. If it was your friend, it'd be hilarious! .... Wouldn't it? So it wasn't an issue when it was ships from other nations but when it's an American ship we're all supposed to care? Since Racheya is included in your quote and made the initial mockery of this, I'd like to highlight that British ships have been targeted near the Somali coast but it wasn't an issue as they weren't American.

I think she might have stopped though. Once you are an addict you're almost always going to be an addict, that's why people completely keep away from whatever they've been addicted to. So it's hypocritical for somebody who is an addict (albeit a reformed one) to knock another addict for having an addiction regardless of whether they are still abusing or not. edit - Upon re-reading that I think you might have meant that Lohan has stopped and not Stevie Nicks but I'm not sure.

Just talking, what sort of film is that? No guns? No explosions? jk

Please explain the logic behind that statement because I can't think how removing the Queen and economic depression go together. Perceived governmental instability. Removal of the reigning monarch and dissolution of the current political structure would, despite what they would outwardly say, give the other nations, and more specifically the leading companies/investors in those nations, the impression that England was not a stable place to invest or do business. Reduction in trade with other countries, especially in a country as small as England who has no hope of producing everything it's industries need, could easily lead to a recession. A recession would lead to companies laying off employees or closing altogether. That, in turn, would lead to increased unemployment which would further increase the impression of instability and cause more countries/people to pull their investments out. It's a vicious downward spiral which can be very difficult to pull out of. I'm glad you cleared that up but I still don't agree. Its pretty well known by anyone who has any dealings with Britain that the Queen has little practical power and that the powers she does have are ceremonial in practice. I don't foresee any perception that the country will become unstable if the Monarchy goes. We've got a long established reputation for global trade that I can't see being obliterated overnight by getting rid of the Royals, if the British are known for anything it is for being 'civilised' there is little chance of any dissolution ending up in a constitutional crisis (not that we have a written one anyway but now we're splitting hairs). In short, the dissolution of the Monarchy would have zero, or negligible, effect on our system of government in practice which is the cornerstone of your theory.

Please explain the logic behind that statement because I can't think how removing the Queen and economic depression go together.

I'm not convinced on the money argument after seeing some of the recent scandals with MP expenses! You can't really use the MP's expenses scandal as a justification because we actually have a say over who can be an MP and we can hold them to account over it. I don't agree with how MP's expenses are being dealt with either though. ------------------- She's only the head of the church of England though (ironic for a family of Germans) she has to apoint a regent for the church of Scotland. That was one of the big arguments over potentially allowing Catholics into the Monarchy as well (they can't legally at the moment for those who don't know). People thought that it would threaten her position in the church of England which is ridiculous. I agree with separating the church from the state though, it really is archaic that we haven't, faith shouldn't mix with state. -------------------------- The last time the monarch refused to grant royal assent to a new law was 300 years ago - if she tried to do it today then there would be a revolution Britain really isn't a revolutionary type of nation, we'd probably just sign a petition to complain and then form an orderly queue to hand it over to the government.

The UK royal family costs over £37M in 2005 alone which doesn't include protection costs. I vaguely remember reading recently that they wanted more but I can't find an article on that at the moment. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm I still don't buy the tourism argument, most tourists sees the Royals and their palaces wouldn't disappear if there wasn't a monarchy. Again, France is one of the biggest tourist capitals in the world but they got rid of their monarchy long ago. The argument doesn't work for me.

I do agree we spend too much money on them, but where would that money end up going? Just lining the pockets of the politicians rather than the people, probably. *sigh* It's easy to be cynical about how the would be spent in the current climate with the banking bailouts and the MP's expenses controversies but hypothetically that cash could be used to keep hospitals and schools running rather than to pay for Prince Andrew and Prince William to use the RAF as their personal taxi service.

There is no need for a Monarch in a modern democratic state, the have no practical purpose in our society. The cost of the Royal family to the taxpayer could be put to much better use and help the masses rather than the privileged few who are only in that position because they were lucky to be born into a Royal family. People make the argument that the Royals are a tradition and that they bring in tourists. Well, we also had a tradition of pillaging the world in the name of empire as well until we thankfully gave that abhorrent nonsense up and Paris is one is one of the world's biggest tourist attractions (remember what they did with their monarchy?).

They are suspects that doesn't make them guilty at all. Also, under torture people are willing to admit to anything just to stop being tortured, you will get little accurate or usable intelligence from torture because of this. The ticking timebomb scenario is practically speaking, ridiculous - it might work for Jack Bauer in 24 but it isn't feasible in real life. Using torture just gives groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda great propaganda that they use to recruit more young disillusioned kids, what a lovely way to win hearts and minds.

Hearts and minds, yes. But there are some people that might need a gun to stop. Can you actually say you believe any diplomatic relations with certain individuals (or some nations) would work? True but by winning hearts & minds you take away their support which they need to survive and to recruit new blood. If they lose support in the Pakistani tribal regions, Al Qaeda is a lame duck but that is nowhere near possible currently. What is this, international finders keepers?

Anyone who has a brain would justify the war on terror by mentioning how destructive and ludicrously fundamental terrorists are, not by their opposition to Western freedom. It isn't an uncommon argument, I know it's anecdotal but I remember that being a pretty reason given for why the people who were attacking America, hated America - it was nigh on a conservative pundits catchphrase early on. It isn't my personal reasoning but it was an common reason given by many people.

I love how many people who support(ed) the war on terrorism and/or the war in Iraq used the term "they hate our freedom" to justify everything when many of them are the same people who are destroying that freedom. The hysteria regarding terrorism can be a little excessive at times. Can you personally recall any such cases where wire-tap evidence has been used to convict a terrorist (or would-be terrorist) in America during the 7 and a bit years since the signing of the Patriot Act?

There have been a couple of book threads that have done okay but there isn't enough demand for a full forum. It isn't comparable to the movies/tv forum as if you remember before it was created ( I don't know whether you do or not) but the board was flooded with them which showed that there was a lot of demand for it.

Excactly, we've been having this same debate since the dawn of time (or at least after about a year after the creation of the first tip.it off topic). We tend to go through cycles because if you don't know somebody personally there is a limit to what you can really talk to each other about. Topics come and go and then come back later and so do users, we just have to get used to it and realise that in the meantime we're changing as people too.

So, let's assume that for the sake of your argument that even half the news posted on OT could be classified as 'proper news'... :P Valid point, I consider the Shamwow guy thread equally as loathsome its just that I came to this one first. I just don't see any discussion value in this topic other than saying its terrible or to get a cheap laugh, sorry. I don't mind these kind of posts if there is scope for a discussion from it but this isn't the case here.

This is from the start of last month, it isn't proper news and it isn't even that interesting.

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp

How did this thread ever get beyond one page without being locked?

Have you seen this before? I caught it on TV a year or two ago and thought it was excellent. That's the Sinatra film right? If so, it's pretty good I agree.

A post uni gift to myself.

I'd say the formation of Israel was pretty special treatment for them. Are you just anti semitic or ignorant ? ... Where is the unfairness here ? Don't bring up the mandate. I forgot that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic :roll: .

I was reading this thread, and I'm afraid I have to point out that stabbing yourself is, in fact, illegal. Suicide is considered 'murder' and is punishable by the legal system, but you can't really punish them, 'cause they're dead. We can't let exceptions slip under the radar. She broke the law by procuring sexually explicit images of somebody under 18; therefore it is child pornography; therefore illegal. Just because it doesn't 'harm' many people, doesn't make it any less illegal. It harms the community as a whole for those kind of pictures to be out there. Here, let me put it out like this: If a 15 year old kid stabs somebody, they'll be charged with assault the same as if a 25 year old stabs somebody. Just because she's 14 doesn't make her any more guilty or innocent; she committed a crime that must be punished. You're missing the point. Child pornography laws are there to kill the demand for child pornography and by extension stop children being abused. Now the person in this case is not being abused by the person who made the images available (herself) and there is no abuse at the root of this case. If this was a normal case, she would be the victim. By implication you are suggesting that this child is as bad as a child abuser for what she did which is nonsensical. Also stabbing yourself and suicide are not necessarily the same thing.

That's a pretty nice list, there's defiantly a lot of crossover on their to what I like to listen to personally. There are a few there that I haven't heard that might have a listen to over the next few weeks when I have time.

This. (jk :P ) It's irritating me as well it just seems so pointless but I've been seeing it a lot lately. It's like the new +1. Lazy people shouldn't post if they having nothing new or decent to add to the topic.