1_man_army

Really? All of the reviews I read said it was horrible. But, really, the only worthwhile Nas album I've listened to has been Illmatic. It's not on a level with Illmatic (no other hip hip album is) or even It Was Written but I like Nas and his style so I liked it, it's a quite political for Nas, a real love it or hate it album in my opinion. What were you expecting? :P I forgot to say about Kanye West's album that I really loved what he did with the big drums throughout the album, a tiny redeeming feature but it still wasn't enough to save the album. Hopefully he can return to form for his next album.

I haven't bought many albums this year, in fact I bought no new rock albums at all. It was a pretty hip hop year for me album wise I liked; Nas - Untitled Even as a Nas fan, after all the controversy about naming the album I was ready for a weak album to be honest but instead it was pretty good. Q-Tip - The Renaissance I like Q-Tip both as a solo artist and as a member of A Tribe Called Quest, the album is exactly what you want/expect from him - a smooth, quirky hip hop record that doesn't follow the normal rap formula. Q-Tip - Kamaal The Abstract It wasn't recorded or released this year but I discovered it this year. Q-Tip's label has it shelved as they don't know how to market it so it is only available illegally because of this (it was sent out to journalists for reviews) but I would pay for it if it is ever released properly. It sounds a bit like some of Outkast's music at times. On the other hand I found Kanye West's album disapointing generally (although 1 or 2 tracks do stand out) and Lil Wayne's much hyped album was just junk (minus Dr Carter). I haven't had time to get/listen to Guns N Roses new album but I'm not too keen on the single so I'm not to enthusiastic to be honest.

Correction, Israel has been given bigger guns. Correction, Israel has been given the threat of bigger guns. I was referring to the arms that the US provides to Israel, I presume you're referring to nuclear weapons (which aren't there to threaten the Palestinians but rather Israels larger enemies like Iran, Syria etc). edit Let me ask you a question, how can the West actively seek to promote the spread of democracy and then change the rules when somebody they don't like is elected? Don't get me wrong I don't condone or support Hamas but when they got in power the Quartet (USA, UN, EU & Russia) suddenly changes what it does to help the Palestinian people. It's complete blackmail - "we'll give you aid and the tax money that your people raise but only if you elect who we want."

Correction, Israel has been given bigger guns.

It's just opportunism, in my opinion, attack while Bush is on the way out and before Obama is in & coincidentally just before Israel's own elections. No doubt this is the sequel to what they did in Lebannon - get in quickly destroy as much as you can & get out before things get awkward. I do think the Israeli's have the right to defend themselves against the rockets but their response is so disproportionate that it is almost laughable, the rocket attacks were down dramatically (to as close as zero as is possible in Gaza) for a while after the ceasefire agreement but they still didn't end the Gaza blockade, so where is the incentive for continuing to not fire rockets? It really worries me how Israel is collectively punishing the civilians of Gaza by bombing what is one of the world's most densely populated areas, they know that the civilian casualties will be massive but yet they continue to bomb. If Israel wants to destroy the influence of Hamas it has just shot itself in the foot, in times like this people will be even more attracted to the extremes, like Hamas, and it will bolster huge support for them - I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas won in the West Bank in he next Palestinian elections. I also fear Tzipi Livni becoming the Israeli PM, she appears to be a bit of a hardliner which is not going to help the peace process at all. Another thing that puzzles me is why Israel is actively targeting the Palestinian domestic police force, if they want an end to rocket attacks then the very last thing you should do is target the police force that is in charge of keeping order, it is completely counter-productive. I really hope this doesn't descend into a prolonged ground assault as has been suggested by some news sources as it will lead to huge losses of live, Hamas taking up extreme methods of resistance (ie suicide bombings) and it will destroy any chance of peace.

Nazi Germany would be a bad example of communism because (wait for it) it wasn't communist. In fact, Hitler, like all fascists, are fundamentally opposed to communism.

It's a region 2 boxset, it's a bit cheaper than the Masterpiece Collection as well as it's only £17. Is Psycho a 2 disk in that set? edit - They're both 15 disk collection (Amazon has my one down as 14 but it's wrong) so I think there is a possibility that they are the same material with different packaging.

I'd say 35 because that's when I'd consider that you have the best combination of maturity, experience, intelligence and physical ability compared to any other time in your life. Don't get me wrong, at an earlier age you may be better physically and at a later age you may have more experience but at 35 I'd say this is when all the above aspects meet momentarily before the go their separate ways.

A couple of few pre-Christmas buys; and a Christmas gift; Contains Vertigo, The Birds, Rear Window, Marnie, Frenzy, Topaz, The Trouble With Harry, Torn Curtain, Psycho, Family Plot, Saboteur. Shadow Of A Doubt, Man Who Knew Too Much & Rope.

Twisting words? No I'm just pointing out that guns have the side effect of keeping the peace. -.- Imagine a world without police. Either way you look at it, a lot of things are causes of death but that doesn't mean you shouldn't look at the benefits. The twisting words bit was aimed at the post above mine, not yours.

That wasn't the argument I was making and you know it. I was responding to a poster who suggested that drugs, cars and knives are comparable with guns as they all cause unintentional deaths. That was an argument which I rejected on the basis that, from that list, only guns are designed with the sole intent of killing. Don't twist what I'm saying please, I didn't say that people don't use guns recreationally, I said that they are designed to kill - that is an undeniable fact. Hypothetically if you had a nuclear bomb you could you it recreationally to, say, blow giant holes in the earth...

I know, I was just being a bit of an arse to be honest (it's about 3am here, that is my excuse).

Nothing else to add - I don't care about peoples' eating habits. It's lucky he isn't a vet :? ...

You argue that you want to prevent deaths. So by what you're going by, why not take away knives, drugs, and cars too? Do I need to bring up the statistics about how many people die from those compared to guns? Guns are designed with the3 sole intent to kill, cars are designed for transport, knives are a practical tool for cutting things (like your food) and drugs are designed either to a)cure disease b)alleviate pain or c)to bring pleasure via their abuse. There is a massive difference, comparing them is a strawman argument. edit - we really need a strawman smilie... [/hide] Just because something is designed with the intent to kill doesn't mean that everyone actually uses them to kill (excluding hunting). A nuclear bomb could be used as the world's most extravagant paperweight but that doesn't negate the fact that it is a nuclear bomb. You have no point here, guns are designed to kill that is their function regardless of what people do with them.

You argue that you want to prevent deaths. So by what you're going by, why not take away knives, drugs, and cars too? Do I need to bring up the statistics about how many people die from those compared to guns? Guns are designed with the3 sole intent to kill, cars are designed for transport, knives are a practical tool for cutting things (like your food) and drugs are designed either to a)cure disease b)alleviate pain or c)to bring pleasure via their abuse. There is a massive difference, comparing them is a strawman argument. edit - we really need a strawman smilie...

Time doesn't award the Man of the Year award based on how good they are. In fact, they claim that it's based only on how much news they created (which isn't true, Rudy Giuliani was Man of the Year in 2001 when it should've been Bin Laden). Time's sales would have tanked if they put Bin Laden on their cover as 'Man of the Year' in 2001. I don't think they'd have recovered yet if they had.

Let my clarify my position slightly, I don't advocate an unadulterated, unconditional bail out. I do advocate using some of the original bailout money to the industry to help them through this time, this would come at the cost of them streamlining their practices, reduce costs & output and make provisions on them investing in more renewable options once this economic period has run its course. Yes, this would involve some job losses but a lot less then allowing them to go under (I know I quoted the press's bloated figure of 3 million - I'll concede laziness on my part there however, there would still be a large number of people who will become unemployed if they go down. Letting them go down will only increase the number of people needing welfare and decrease the number of people contributing to the economy via their taxes and their spending. The economy runs in cycles, no doubt the industry will pick up again and this moment is a useful period to exploit by forcing measures in order to prevent such a bust in the auto-industry in the future. I do concede there is a tendency to over-react but that really is the nature of the beast at the moment, the mixing of perception and reality is making this period worse than it might have been. If bailing out isn't viable then consolidation is the only way I see forward. However, this would still have to be carried out with strict provisions and would have to be judged on an individual basis depending on the proposals that come in. If this is the way forward then it is better to do it sooner while they are still surviving rather than let them go completely bust and leave them to the vultures. A little pain now might be better than than the pain of a full-scale collapse of the big 3.

You can stop people getting guns near him but how do you legislate for this? You can't take everyones shoes off them and the guy was a journalist so he had a legitimate reason to be there (even if he abused that reason). You can't legislate for this sort of randomness, you can prevent weapons and reduce the risk to life but you cant prevent an act of basic disruption. That is all it was really disruption there was no real risk to Bush. I know that, but it wouldn't be incredibly hard to sneak a gun into a place like that (hide it in the camera?) lol; I'm just saying the bodyguards should have been there even if it was only a disruption. It takes seconds to throw shoes, security wouldn't exactly be alarmed with somebody taking them off so they'd only have the seconds it took to throw to react. What do you expect, the bodyguard to jump in slow motion and intercept the shoe? He was stopped from doing anything else once they realised what was happening.

^^ and then you say goodbye to 3 million jobs that are in, or reliant, on the industry. Those 3 million also vote, pay taxes & have families. The knock-on effect would be tremendous and that is just looking at it from a practical perspective, you can also look at it as a moral issue - "should I stick to my ideals and let those people lose out?"

You can stop people getting guns near him but how do you legislate for this? You can't take everyones shoes off them and the guy was a journalist so he had a legitimate reason to be there (even if he abused that reason). You can't legislate for this sort of randomness, you can prevent weapons and reduce the risk to life but you cant prevent an act of basic disruption. That is all it was really disruption there was no real risk to Bush.

Slight problem with the uberman system, a normal person working 9 til 5 would have to have at least 2 seperate naps during their working hours which wouldn't excactly endear them to their employer.

So now you're declaring that you want to go around in circles? I think this is the point where discussion officially dies.

No its viewtopic.php?f=10&t=774653 That is the same thread.

RussianFed, that's a simplistic argument. Palestinian anti-semitism is as much a reaction against their forced removal from their land by Israel and their continued occupation. If somebody is doing things like this to you it is only natural it will create resentment. The Palestinians have as much right as anyone to live there, they have a legitimate grievance. Now, does that mean I support suicide bombing? No. Nor, do I support any deliberate attacks on civilians. Racism isn't just felt by Israeli's in this remember, there have been attacks on both sides the only difference is that only one side in this dispute has a proper military. As for using the Holocaust as emotional blackmail in helping Israel regardless of their actions, that might have worked in the past but it doesn't fly now. The Holocaust was a horrid crime but it does not excuse Israel's crimes against the people of Palestine. I do sympathise with Israel as it is surrounded by hostile nations, I agree that they have a right to a homeland and a right to exist as a nation but that can't be achieved at anothers expense. The only way forward in this conflict is a 2 state resolution that creates a clear and agreed upon division of land (with borders) between Israel and Palestine, the return of disputed territory (such as the Golan Heights) and some way of sharing Jerusalem. Will this happen? Probably not, there are too many fundamentalists and hardliners on both sides but there is always hope.

I thought the Continuity IRA had little support in the republican communities though anyway.