1_man_army

If anyone is considering voting tactically or is vaguely interested in how important their constituency is, this website should give you an idea of how influential your constituency is/can be in the overall outcome of the general election. http://www.voterpower.org.uk Just as an example here is the page for my constituency: http://www.voterpower.org.uk/kirkcaldy-cowdenbeath

I doubt the BNP will win a seat because they don't have a high enough concentration of votes in one area. As far as other small parties winning seats, Respect are fighting the seat they won in the last election but I don't see them keeping it (they won on a largely anti-war ticket in 2005 in a large Muslim area of London). I would expect UKIP and the Greens to make small gains in the popular vote but still not gain a seat. There is usually an independent maverick or two who steal a seat with a great local campaign but I'm not sure how likely that is this time with the election looking to be such a close fight.

I hate double posting but I had a few extras that I wasn't able to put in the first post. and just for the hell of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp4_r8_MMho http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbDFS6cg1AI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1CaN4thI5w

I meant to post that track when I first heard it, I really liked it. Anyway here is the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvXit6N3M5E I also liked the sample in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bpGb93tuqQ Since Guru died recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EWJ9JrxU0g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhe_VBLqEK0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcrG05S_xoE

Thankyou for wearing skirts and giving me a good few laughs. :-P Thank you for giving us the concentration camp... :???: [/hide] I'm English not German? And it was just a joke..? :unsure: Actually the concentration camp was invented during the Boer War but that's not the same as the Nazi death camps. Also, I know you were kidding, my response was only meant as gentle mockery :razz: .

Thankyou for wearing skirts and giving me a good few laughs. :-P Thank you for giving us the concentration camp... :???:

A much better question is where would the world be without Scotland? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_inventions Considering the size of our nation, I'd say we've given more to the world than most nations. It's okay you don't need to thank us :wink: .

Plus, if weed was legalised (and therefore a corporate product) it would be more competatively priced which would discourage homegrowing because of the expense in doing so.

Sugar Ray Robinson Pele Maradona Usain Bolt and the best footballer on the planet right now:

He wants to replace Trident (current projected cost: £100Bn) with a much smaller and cheaper deterrant (which we never actually use). Also, he wants uncontrolled immigration...come on don't be so daft. The Lib Dem policy is to regulate immigration by region - giving visas to immigrants based on the area where they want to work / live and the need for the immigrants skills in that area. It makes much more sense than the moronic flat cap Tory policy (they've given no number for this cap by the way) or the Labour policy of just throwing money at the problem and hoping it goes away.

Exactly, thats why we should wear National ID cards but that would be "unconstitutional" because you can be tracked or whatever the hell paranoid "rights" advocates claim. People who are "rights crazy" think its like the only way you can be tracked hahaha, I guess none of them have a computer, cellphone, credit card, car with navigation system, etc. If the American right wing convinced a huge part of the country that they couldn't afford the Healthcare reform that was passed how could the government ever justify spending huge amounts on a biometric ID card system that would be unfeasably expensive, difficult to enforce and which would just cause a general hassle to people going about their everyday lives. Because it is for the purpose of security and great many new jobs while social healthcare is basically an inefficient transfer of someone who has health care paying to a firm to someone paying increased taxes for an inefficient government program so they also decide to have private insurance and now the people who don't work have more incentive to work as now they have free money and health care given to them while effectively reducing competition, jobs and our status as a capitalist nation. Spain has an ID card system but that didn't prevent the Madrid rail bombings. A mass ID system is unworkable on a huge scale. There is no workable way that you can check everyone all the time when they go about their daily lives, it would cost a huge amount and have no real feasable return. If security is the arguement, then it still leaves you open to tourists (as you can't make a biometric ID on a whim) and homegrown terrorists - even if you racially profiled (which I don't condone) it would still be open for white muslim converts (I'm using Islamic militancy as the example here but the same principle applies for other groups obviously). In the case of illegal immigrants, the only way it would work is if you chose people on the streets and asked for their ID but that power can already be excercised in the US at the moment with the green card system The only thing a mass ID scheme would do is waste an awful amount of money on a system that would provide little return.

Exactly, thats why we should wear National ID cards but that would be "unconstitutional" because you can be tracked or whatever the hell paranoid "rights" advocates claim. People who are "rights crazy" think its like the only way you can be tracked hahaha, I guess none of them have a computer, cellphone, credit card, car with navigation system, etc. If the American right wing convinced a huge part of the country that they couldn't afford the Healthcare reform that was passed how could the government ever justify spending huge amounts on a biometric ID card system that would be unfeasably expensive, difficult to enforce and which would just cause a general hassle to people going about their everyday lives.

All it took to spark World War I was some random Bosnian Serb in Sarajevo named Gavrilo Princip, who assassinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. ;) All because a little serb named Princip went ka-pow. I blame it on the Archduke's driver, he took a wrong turn which is how he ended up in front of Princip. The costliest wrong turn in the history of mankind. On topic: The allies system of the time was what caused WW1 more than anything. The killing of the Archduke may have been the straw that broke the camel's back but with the alliance system that was in place in Europe it was always going to happen for some reason. I actually think he turned because something happened so they thought he was in danger going that way. Could be wrong. Kinda ironic that he turned to avoid danger.... and who knows maybe he would have lived if he hadn't. The driver wasn't made aware of a change in plans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria#Shot_dead I'm going to stop now because I'm so far off topic.

All it took to spark World War I was some random Bosnian Serb in Sarajevo named Gavrilo Princip, who assassinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. ;) All because a little serb named Princip went ka-pow. I blame it on the Archduke's driver, he took a wrong turn which is how he ended up in front of Princip. The costliest wrong turn in the history of mankind. On topic: The allies system of the time was what caused WW1 more than anything. The killing of the Archduke may have been the straw that broke the camel's back but with the alliance system that was in place in Europe it was always going to happen for some reason.

The problem is that they have leverage now. With them being involved this time they would cry foul if they were excluded in the future and they would use the newspapers to attack and claim that Labour (or whoever they're against at the time) are afraid of them and the hard questions. It's really a case of 'you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't."

Presumably, that would be Silverion - the founder of tip.it.

That may be your experience but if you look at how methadone is prescribed for heroin users and how nicotine replacement therapy works then you can see how the gradual reduction method works. An immediate halt to all consumption tends to create a more significant craving which is counter-productive. Obviously, it depends on the case and the person but for strong addictions (speaking more generally now) gradual reduction is favoured. Again, it depends on the case though, some people can cold turkey their addictions but I wouldn't think they would be in the majority - particularly with stronger and more serious addictions.

Why? It's the same principle as when people try to stop smoking. If you go cold turkey you'll get strong urges to drink the soda again because your body is used to it. Instead you gradually lower your intake and wean your body off of it while getting used to consuming more water gradually at the same time. If you cut it out completely right away I think there is a much lesser chance of you stopping drinking the soda in the long term.

Yeah, al the usual suspects were involved in it. The way I see it, they were trying to see if Brown would take the bait and actually listen to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs or not. The problem now is that drugs policy is no longer based on the science of the issue, it has become so hysterically politicised.

The methedrone thing was complete media hysteria. There still isn't a consensus on whether it was a direct cause of death for those people but the media jumped on it and ran with their own slant on things. Labour had no choice but to criminalise it thouh because if they had jittered about it, certain newspapers would have exploited it for a cheap "soft on drugs" narrative.

Interesting but can they keep it up? I can see both the Tories and Labour really stepping up their attacks against the Lib Dems in the run in. That could hurt the Lib Dems or it end up being counter-productive as people might think that it is an overly negative tactic and be turned off.

I think one of the polls (might have been the yougov poll, not sure) had Labour polling behind the Lib Dems and still getting the most seats in a hung parliament. The opinion polls are irrelevent really, it's more dependant on how the votes are concentrated throughout the country.

They most likely won't get anything. With general elections working on the First Past the Post system rather than Proportional Representation, the fringe parties have little to no chance of a parliamentary seat. In the European elections and in some council elections, they often have a slight impact but that is because they use a PR system.

Or here's a better suggestion, how about if you don't like rap don't post in the topic.

This really is the safest way to handle a break in. For one, it's far easier to argue that you acted out of self-defense. Likewise, there are a lot of burglars who carry weapons, so it's impossible to tell if a person is armed or not when they break into your home. Since there are quite a few sociopaths, they may also just kill you for the hell of it, even if you give them what they want. What is the moral of the story? Kill that son of a [bleep].... Kill them before they kill you. Somebody who has just woken up and then tries to confront a robber like that is probably much less alert than the intruder and more likely to get hurt, I wouldn't consider that too safe. Either that or you accidentally kill a relative who you mistake for an intruder with you "shoot first ask questions later" approach. Unless you're taking a specific type of medication, you should be able to differentiate a person breaking through a window or busting down a door from a relative who is simply entering your home. Likewise, what are you going to do in a potential life or death situation when the robber is bold enough to confront you? Are you going to let them harm you or your family, or are you going to try to defend yourself? What do you do when there's no way that the law can help? Likewise, my scenario is from an American point of view. Since guns are legal in the US, there's a good possibility that any burglar might be armed with some sort of firearm. It's different in the United Kingdom because guns are illegal. It's different when the only thing that your assailant has is a machete or cricket bat. At night time it's harder to make out faces and when the adrenalin is pumping through your veins you make mistakes. Accidental family deaths in these situations are not uncommon. Also when you have just woken (as is often the case in these situations) your reactions and reflexes are not at their best and your eyes often aren't adjusted fully to what little light there is. Most robbers just want to rob and will try not confront a homeowner especially in the US with the availability of firearms. Also, my point was reflective of the likely American scenario hence why the homeowner is more likely toget hurt taking your course of action as the robber will likely be armed also. Obviously there are situations where you are forced to defend yourself by using a firearm (in USA) but what you are describing is not one of those situations, yours is a gung-[garden tool] 'go in firing and kill the robber' scenario which is quite frankly bonkers and increases the dangerous for the homeowner.