1_man_army

Crazy (American/Australian/Canadian/whatever else) hypocrites. Scottish. Or maybe not. I've never too sure. Staffordshire is in England. Why do we Scots always get the blame lol? [/hide] He's saying he's Scottish. I must've missed that then.

I don't think I'd do well in a structured debating class. I really need to have a strong opinion about my subject to be bothered debating on it.

A rapper getting his jewellery stolen isn't big news. All last year a guy paraded jewellery he stole from "Yung Berg" on youtube (Yung Berg is a crappy and illiterate rapper who's had a bit of pop success). The guy hasn't been arrested for it either. Chain snatching is a routine hazard that rappers have to avoid. Crazy (American/Australian/Canadian/whatever else) hypocrites. Scottish. Or maybe not. I've never too sure. Staffordshire is in England. Why do we Scots always get the blame lol?

I don't know about Pittsburgh. It just doesn't have the same appeal thaty DC has to me - I liked that there were things that I could recognise in the Capital Wasteland...I can't think of any Pittsburgh landmarks.

1) In short, no. 2) Depends on the circumstances in which it happened. 3) No, M.A.D reduces the chances of it happening - another Cold War scenario is far more likely. 4) Question is unclear, do you mean humanity as a whole or me personally? 5) Money, Power & hatred.

Don't apologize. If somebody think that's racist let their idiotic minds think that. And for reasons you stated, is why people loath Black History Month. It sounded like a good idea the time it was created, like Affirmative Action. But through time we saw the pointlessness in it. The solution to racism isn't throwing out the minority cards, but understanding that we're all humans. Exactly why I don't like when people refer to Presdient Obama as "the first African-American president". I mean we are all humans why do you have to segregate him by calling him the first black president, it is just making it seem like there is a bigger barrier between races then there really is. To me he is just American and just because he is black it does not make him different or better then any other president before him. They refer to him as the first black president because it was a huge landmark in American society, and it was great for the media. :geek: :ugeek: [/hide] I agree about the media thing, but in these days it I don't see it as a big landmark. I mean its not like its the 1800's or something. The Civil Rights Act was only passed in 1964. In the grand scale of things 35 years is a pretty short space of time for a nation to progress so far.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=561170

My copy of the Bicycle thieves came a week or 2 ago with a slightly broken box (cracked at the top). I mentioned it in passing on the seller feedback on Play.com and today suddenly another copy arrived at no cost at all (I checked my bank account). So I now have one to sell - happy days. indy500fan - Do you have Rope as one of your top 5 Hitchcock film? It left me a bit deflated to be honest, I found it interesting as an experiment in style but it just lacked something for me. edit - my personal list: 1. Vertigo 2. Psycho 3. Rear Window 4. North by Northwest 5. The Birds

Look if you want humour make a thread that we can all find humour in, there is no point in just complaining - be proactive It wasn't even that funny in the film.

Fair enough.

What could possibly be so urgent that you can't wait just over 4 days for a gun?

My point was they are using particular statistics for each state to suit their point. A better and more academic approach would have been to look at each state and compare the same thing over a similar period (for example murder rate by firearm over the last 10 years).

You get out of this god damn thread right now. RIGHT [bleep] NOW. You have lost all right to now talk in this thread. So called "assualt weapons" are used in LESS than three percent of gun crimes. And explosives? I don't think you can even find a statistic for explosive use in crime. Now i know this picture i'm going to show is about five or six years old, but it still makes its point. [hide=][/hide] Seriously, who do you think you are? Disagree with somebody all you want but you have no right to tell people that they should leave a topic, there is no need for it either - if somebody isn't correct then just point it out. For the record your image cherry-picks incidents to make it's point and has clearly avoided taking a universal approach when comparing the states to ensure that it didn't conflict with their intended message. Plus, you misspelled [wagon]ault wrong but I still think you're okay to post in this thread ;) .

That would have more to do with the fact that black people are proportionately under-represented in US colleges compared to their white counterparts, which in turn has a lot to do with the disproportionate rate of black Americans who are below the poverty line and therefore can't afford to pay for college. White people make up the majority at US colleges (with one or two exceptions) so there is no balance to readdress for white people.

If you look more closely at the key periods of mafia violence in the US you'll find that there are 3 key flare ups - the early period when the Italian factions are first arriving and gaining power, during prohibition and during the 60's & 70's when they are moving into narcotics in a big way. Criminals are motivated by easy money, that is why people are ultimately lured into that lifestyle and that is why they end up killing - take away ways to make money and you take away the attraction of that lifestyle. If you stop or reduce the numbers of youngsters getting into that lifestyle then you can still severely hurt these organised crime groups.

It depends on what your criteria for "best picture good" is. It is strange for an unashamedly feel-good film to win (alright it's not a completely feel-good film, it has its sadder and more intense moments but overall it is quite upbeat). If you look at best picture winners over the last 10 years they tend to be a bit downbeat and kind of revelling in tragedy, which I don't mind at all but it is nice to have a change. I'm not sure if that is what you were getting at or whether you just meant that you didn't like the film (or though others were more worthy).

So...you can have an allergic reaction to peanuts as well. Allergies are not reasons to criminalise substances. In UK ecstasy amounts to around 30 deaths per year which, to put this in context, is less than the number of people killed riding horses every year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... iding.html

I found tip.it back when it was first linked to on the RS main page when I played (before they stopped linking to fan sites). It was the only major Runescape fan site at the time. I think I needed it to help me with one of the Lumbridge quests (the one with a ghost?).

Slight logical problem with the "being gay is genetic point" - they have no way to pass on their genetics. That being said, I don't think its a choice, more a matter of taste in the same way that heterosexuals have preferences regarding what type of men/women they like. Taste, I'd say, isn't a choice - you can't help your taste for example I if I don't like a certain type of female, it isn't something I've chosen or can help, it's just the way I react to that type of woman.

"more powerful than superman batman spiderman and the incredible hulk put together" If the board could handle that then it would be the rank I'd take. Or at least some sort of variation on that.

According to the tv news report earlier, it was done over 6 months. They got gradually increasing amounts of the flour everyday until they went on to actual nuts. I think one of the kids is up to 10 per day now. The only catch is that they have had to eat nuts every day to keep up their tolerance level.

I meant: An slight error that can happen as I type then restructure my sentences. As for me being misguided, I'm not saying the US government would take away your civil liberties, I said they could. If the US government wanted to go completely dictatorial and still had control over the military there is no way in hell your little hunting rifles or handguns are doing much against the world's most sophisticated fighter jets & tanks. Hell, Lincoln did take away civil liberties during the civil war. That being said, I would love to know where I've went wrong. Please tell me for future reference. [/hide] There's no real way after Vietnam that such a thing could ever happen. All of the special liberties Presidents can use in Executive Orders died with the War Powers Act. Lincoln's tyranny can never happen again. Tie this into a military that is structured in a way to where control could never be taken by a single power. There's no way it could happen, ever, unless there was such a talented orator as the Antichrist. As for civil liberties, we have more than most European nations, believe it or not. Our Constitution actually protects free speech while in many European lawbooks it's perfectly legal to jail someone for speaking out against the government. In fact, the United States is often criticized worldwide for giving it's people too many rights. True, there is little possibility of that ever happening my point was more that the "well armed militia" isn't workable nowadays as an argument for guns maintaining civil liberties. As for America and civil liberties, I admit to not being an authority on the subject but I was really referring to the far more recent measures involving preventing terrorism (the Patriot Act being the main one) that have been used to sneak in curbs on civil liberties - the UK is getting worse also in that regard according recent reports (in the link). As for Europe, the EU nations are pretty solid in regards to civil liberties and human rights with the exception of laws against Holocaust denial. Obviously, I can't speak for each nation but most of the archaic laws that limit liberties are either not enforced, superseded by more recent legislation or superseded by wider European law. I'm sure there will be exceptions to that. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 23795.html JIM - I was rude earlier. Sorry, was a bit ratty and overly sarcastic to boot.

My response was to: If it were not debunked suggests that Obama has to disprove the accusation against him (that he isn't a natural born citizen) before he takes office. If he has to prove it wrong, then that is not a case of innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accusers in this case to prove their argument, not on Obama to debunk the theory. I'm running out of ways to put that.

Well done on misrepresenting what I said, bravo. My point was, when an accusation has been made, the person that it is made against is innocent until proven guilty. There is nothing difficult about that. In this case it would mean that they would have to prove that he wasn't a natural born citizen in order to bar him from office after an election had been held. Yes, I get requirements are requirements, I never disputed that. I'm the one taking offense? No, it looks like you're the one who felt the need to come here, quote me, and cry about how I shouldn't even mention the word hypothetical. After all, you're the one who initiated this whole thing. Stop being such a hypocrite and stop posting here, since you seem to be the one crying that "people need to get over things". Maybe make relevant replies in the future too to prevent these sort of things? Yes, you were being sensitive. I made simple critique of your hypothetical scenario and you get your knickers in a twist and imply that I have no right to make my point and that it's irrelevant. You made a point and I had a response that was directly related to it - so it was relevant. I still don't get why that upsets you, I really don't. As for me being being upset, I'm not, although I'm genuinely confused over why you're reacting the way you are over something so pointless and something which wasn't even offensive. Look, I could go back and forth with you on this but it isn't related to the topic. I don't get why you were offended by my point, it was simple enough and wasn't inflammatory. If I upset you with my point then grow a thicker skin but I'm not apologising for making an innocent point on an internet forum - if I felt that I was out of order I would apologise but I've said nothing that I could even consider mildly upsetting to you.

You're pretty much on my level as far as bowling goes then. When I bowl it's like the balls are just compelled to go into the gutter, it defies physics sometimes lol.