1_man_army

Anyone who dies from it is an idiot, it should be instinctive - shoot them until your points flash up the screen to avoid last stand & get out of the way to avoid martyrdom.

The terrorists were Pakistani nationals not Indians.

Because for a lot of the British empires earlier wealth they basically raped and pillaged countries such as India, it's not that they think were to free, we just gained the majority of earlier wealth by colonizing countries and taking their natural resources meaning they never had the money nor technology to fully develop. A small extremist terrorist cell isn't the opinion of the entire country, such as the terrorists thinking were to free, India relies on Western countries to help develop it's economy and improve it's country's wellbeing, not every citizen thinks the same as the extremist terrorists. They're killing civilians for something that happened hundreds of years ago and noone involved had anything to do with? There's terrorist logic for you. India only became independent in 1947, it wasn't hundreds of years ago.

Yes, I have some. 2) Did you pull that statistic out of your backside? If not, I'd like to see a source and when you can't find one don't give me the "it's common sense" routine that everyone gives when they make baseless assertions. I don't get this belief that all criminals have illegal weapons, it isn't like they're getting them smuggled from Mexico - in fact Mexican cartels have to smuggle guns from USA. Criminals, despite the myth, actually tend to get guns via family or friends; [/hide] Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ffo98.pdf 4) As far as I'm aware pretty most homes have electricity, definitely those who can afford to buy a gun. Secondly, most bunglers don't want to kill people and anybody who is willing to risk death in a gun fight over their TV and DVD player is a moron to begin with. The last sentence doesn't even deserve comment, it's just symptomatic of the climate of fear that is destroying America.

I don't believe in military conscription for many reasons but I do feel that young people should participate in some form of mandatory service. I think it would benefit society to have young people (people leaving high school) do a mandatory period in which they do some sort of service for their community for say, a period of between 3-6 months. The service could include things that are commonly done in community service for misdemeanor crimes (grass cutting, street cleaning, charity work etc). I think this would help those doing the service as it would give them a better understanding of the issues in their communities and in society generally although I concede the idea wouldn't be too welcomed among the people that would have to do it. I also think it would help change the perception of young people, it would be good to see them doing good in their communities rather than everyone hearing the same old stories of how young people are "out of control." I was reading that Obama is a voluntary plan for getting young people to do community work but I've still to familiarise myself with it to any great deal. I'm sure there are similar schemes abroad but I can't think of them at the moment. Sorry, I know I rambled a bit there, I'm just tired.

Why not? I agree, generalising this by looking for some comparison to 9/11 seems daft, especially since Islamist extremism has been going on in India looong before America started caring about terrorism. The aim of each was still the same though. Both attacks seem to have been conducted by Islamist extremist groups, although it's not clear this latest attack had anything to do with al-Qaeda. Both attacks were on not necessarily Americans, but international businessmen. Both of the attacks would not have required a deep level of training to conduct - it sounds shallow, but there's rumours of there being dozens of gunmen who opened rapid fire in a packed railway station and they only took 130 lives despite laying siege to four or five other targets? [/hide] Because it was on the 11-25 - 11-26 You're either being awkward for the sake of it or you are that stupid that you missed the point. I'm still not sure.

So your saying that the Japaneese auto makers that have factories in the US would rather ship their supplies from out of the country into the US when they can cut cost by not having to import them? Steel is steel, aluminum is aluminum. The quality has nothing to do with the supplies the big 3 are getting, it's how they're manufacturing their parts out of the supplies. The cost of the miners is a lot lower in other countries, you don't necessarily have the safety regulations abroad (and the cost of implementing the regulations) and there are other associated costs which are lower outside the US. The reduction of those costs abroad evidently is much greater than the cost of importing the materials.

That is unworkable though, how do you define the merits of say a lawyer compared to somebody laying tarmac for a road. Physically, the road laying is infinitely more strenuous but it require anywhere near as much mentally (in terms of qualifications etc), you see what I mean? That sort of idea works for people doing the same jobs, or the same type of work but it's unworkable when setting wages for different types of work.

[hide=] s that real? Because if so...I SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo want to see it...but good things are usually crap... That looks too photoshopped for me though... [/hide] That image of Stallone is from the film Copland, so I would think it is a fake poster. Plus read the cast list below the images if you need to be convinced more.

I'd just like to point out that I'm not religious, I was just making the point that you can use the bible to argue that many if not all economic/governmental systems are wrong. Using the bible just doesn't work in this argument.

The bible doesn't support being rich either, which lets face it, is the ultimate goal of any capitalist. .

I'd have to disagree. It isn't the result of a movement from above (the government and the Church), but rather what would be the result from below if a politician actually dared to say, "I support the decriminalisation of weed". They'd be called irresponsible gang-lovers by the social conservatives. It's the same principle as raising taxes, even if politicians want/need to do it they won't as they'll become unelectable.

Or even worse, when people sing or make stupid noises into their mics.

It's funny how must of our cabinet has done it and all of them claimed not to have disliked it. It would be great to get them hooked up to a polygraph test on this, hypocrites. I'm sure there's a bit about this on Mock the Week but I can't find the clip.

There are laws against deliberately adding chemicals into products to make them addictive, if there wasn't they would be in everything (mmm crack burgers..). The only reason nicotine is allowed in cigarettes is because it a natural element found in the tobacco plant. Was I the only one who rolled my eyes and though "again?" when they seen this topic?

I believe that was Jim Cramer. Also, Warren Buffet, the richest man on Earth, endorsed Obama. Being Rich =/= make you 'know more' about the election. Warren Buffet is one of the world's most successful private investors ever. When it comes to money, he knows what he is talking about. There's even been talk of him being brought in as the Treasury Secretary by Obama.

Without going into too much detail, I think education at a high school level tends to focus too much on getting pupils through exams rather than giving them a good grounding in the subject. That tends to be especially true of fee paying schools, in my experience of meeting people from these schools they all come out with good grades but on closer inspection they have very little wider knowledge of the subject - how you can get an A in history and not know who Mussolini is baffling to me. That is my only addition to this thread, all of my other gripes have been covered.

All he'll do is some presidential pardons and the like. To get on good terms with some people before leaving office. It'll be interesting to see who he gives pardons to, I wonder if Scooter Libby will come up in this.

Only 4 years off, Confucius has nothing on this guy lol.

Don't they have people write their speeches or something though? A lot of the big speeches in recent history were written by people other than the person who read them. It isn't exactly a new phenomenon.

Medvedev is a puppet for Putin (try saying that drunk). The only reason Putin still isn't officially still President is because of the two term rule, so how else would he keep real power?

The problem with Russia now is the people's perception of democracy and who that gives the power to. After USSR fell and split, Russia went through social and economic turmoil, it lost much of it's territory, the economy was destroyed, there was lawlessness and the state industries were being sold off for nothing compared to their real value (look at Sibneft). That left Russia in a horrible state, they had gone from the world's 2nd largest power to a running joke during the Yeltsin years and this hurt Russian pride. Those years created a link for them between democracy and the mess their nation became. That's why they responded so well to Putin, he was perceived to be a strongman who reminded them of past glories who could recapture Russian pride on the world stage, his KGB past helped create that image. That need to build up Russian pride has been a big part of why Russia has acted in the ways it has on the world stage, it's their way of saying "we're back and we'll do what we want." Until the Russian people embrace the concept of democracy and don't associate it with the weak rule and madness of the Yeltsin years they won't come into the international fold, too many still want to see Russia having the massive sphere of influence that it once had. That can't/won't happen until the Putin clique and his puppet are removed in my opinion. That being said Germany isn't a good comparison, there are very different issues at hand in relation to Germany.

Science should be taught from a scientific point of view. If we don't teach scientific areas because they conflict with religion then everyone will lose out. What next, we're not learning about dinosaurs because some religious people think they shared the earth with people? As for the morality of Islam, all religions have bits that, if interpreted a certain way, look bad. The bible has plenty of those. It also has bits that are selectively ignored. America promotes capitalism and promotes the American Dream (ie anyone can come and get rich) but Jesus says: See how easy it is to single little bits out of a text to make a point...Jesus was a socialist :roll:

He is not a socialist, he is fundamentally a capitalist. I can't be bothered going over this again.

Well his pay is based on how many viewers he can pull in (he is the only thing to watch on a friday night if you're in) and what is perceived to be his marketing value. Before this happened he could have gotten the same on ITV or Sky, the BBC has to be competitive in order to keep it's top talent. Also, this wasn't necessarily Brand or Ross' fault either, if this was considered too risque for broadcast then the producers should have prevented it from airing as it wasn't live. Instead they chose to pass it and that is why the controller of radio 2 ended up resigning. If there is anymore proof needed that this is being exploited to attack the BBC, look at how the press has been trying to do the same thing with Jeremy Clarkson's lorry drivers joke. It wasn't offensive, I say that not only as somebody who enjoys watching Clarkson but as the son of a lorry driver, my Dad found it even funnier than I did.