1_man_army

The power to dissolve parliament is only used before a General Election to allow the political parties to go about their business of campaigning, being misleading & occasionally downright lying. Plus the decision to dissolve parliament is taken by the Prime Minister who has to ask the permission of the Queen. Again it's a ceremonial power & has no real meaning other than being an old tradition.

I've got a 3 or 4 inch scar above my hip from the time I fell out of a tree & caught the bit of the branch still attached to the truck with my stomach. I've got a scar on the underside of my chin (so you cant see it until I raise my head) that runs the length of my chin from when my face bounced off some stairs. and lastly I have a little scar (about an inch) next to my belly button from when I tripped carrying a pointy broken bit of wood. .....and your complaining about that I've had a bigger scratch on my backside speaking of which....just kidding Seriously though you need to watch what you're doing, you could have done yourself some damage. If you lost an eye depth perception would have really been a pain.

no way :-s :-$ Worse part was when the father found out. About both. Lmao now that is something you can boast about in the pub for years to come. Legend :D

That may be strictly true however, Scotland has never accepted GSTQ for several reasons - one of which being that it used to contain the following verse; "Lord, grant that Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring. May he sedition hush and like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, God save the King."

Im curious, what is your gripe with "God Save The Queen"?

Those are purely ceremonial powers and not real powers. It's merely a convention that the monarch has to put laws into effect, just like it's merely convention for the newly elected Prime Minister to ask if he/she can form the govenment.

Well I think there is no point in having a Monarchy in UK and I'll explain why. Firstly she has no real power - so therefore position holds no purpose in a modern democracy. She, and her large extended family, are given literally millions of pounds every year as well as expenses (for things such as private air travel, staff for her palaces etc.) which also run into millions - This money could be spent on much more worthwhile things like hospitals, schools, the police force etc. This huge waste of money is reflected in the fact that the Queen is regularly listed as one of the top 10 richest women in the world. Monarchy has no place in a civilised democracy & in my opinion merely serves as a reminder of a far more oppressive age. ----------------------------- I here this argument time & time again but yet I'm never satisfied with it. When visitors come to UK (& specifically the Greater London area) do they ever actually meet the Queen or the Royal family? It's safe to say it's a rare occurance. Now if the Queen was removed tommorrow, that wouldn't remove all historical sites that are currently (or have previously been) associated with the Monarchy - Buckingham Palace, The Houses of Parliament & The Tower of London would all still stand & would all still be visited by tourists every year. My constant counter to this tourism point would be the fact that France got rid of their Monarchy but people still visit France in huge numbers. People still go to the Arc de Triomphe, Grand Palais, Champs-ÃÆÃââââ¬Ã°lysÃÆÃâÃâées, & The Palance of Versailles eventhough there is no Monarchy is France. Infact Paris is one of the biggest tourist hot spots in the world.

You better watch you might catch a beating for that. I know thats very un-christian like but they wont see the irony. Please. When is the last time you heard of a Christian beating up ANYBODY? I was kidding anyways. I wouldn't waste my time. I'm not into the whole "ironic protest" crap. I was kidding as well but I couldn't help but laugh at the mental image I had of some Old Woman literally bashing you with a bible.

You better watch you might catch a beating for that. I know thats very un-christian like but they wont see the irony.

I've not seen that far yet (UK TV schedule is different) so please if anybody is posting anything that will give away bits of the plot (spoilers) could you please hide it/ make it unreadable unless highlighted. I'd reccommend changing the colour of the text but Im sure there are other ways.

There is no ,nor has there ever been, a link between Iraq & 9/11.

I dont pay so that other people can be greedy, so I pay for what I had on the bill. Plus that way I don't feel guilty for being greedy because I know that Im not passing the cost on to anyone else.

Tough game for us in Wednesday night.... Italy away. If we can get a draw then I'll be delighted. Gonna make a prediction, Italy 1-1 Scotland. So long as Big Eck doesn't play that donkey Kenny Miller, or Alexander, or Teal or... ah, nvm ;) Well we took a point from them in the last World Cup qualifying game we had with them. In fact that was a game we should have won, Kenny Miller ran Nesta ragged for the whole game. It's not entirely impossible... Even if we lose our games against France, Italy & Ukraine we could still qualify if we win our remaining games. France still need to play Italy again & Ukraine still have both to play twice so hopefully they will take points from each other & that will mean plently of draws as that would play into our hands.

Wasn't it 2 - 1? But anyway yeh thats good i suppose id follow all of the home nations and love seeng David Healy doing well for N. Ireland. WHat a legend. Lmao yeah it was. I was talking about the France game to a mate as I was posting - France won 1-0

Scotland 2 - Georgia 1 It doesn't matter that we only won with a last minute goal that rolled down Craig Beattie's leg because we're still top of the toughest qualifying group(the one that has both world cup finalists & a team that got to the quarter finals). If only Lituania had kept France from scoring then we'd be on easy street. :D

Nevertheless Hitler started the war, by the end of it over 50 million lives had been lost because of it. I would class that as dangerous. Of course I don't dispute that for a second.

Do you think if Hitler was smarter in the way he handled himself, he would have ended up just as evil in Stalin? I think that if Hitler insulated himself to the same degree as Stalin did then its possible he could have gone on to be more destructive than he was. However, the way Hitler ruled Germany (by annexing foreign nations) meant he could never have a long reign, where as when Stalin took land he did it in an opportunistic manner (mainly during the post-war conferences) Stalin in my opinion was far more shrewd politically than Hitler which I feel made him more dangerous. A smarter enemy is more dangerous than an aggressive enemy in my opinion. Christ I'm starting to sound like Sun Tzu...

Ah yes, its coming back to me now :P. The purges thing simply helped kick start the country into developing economically. People were too scared to ask for raises or days off, and so by sheer terror, Stalin managed to get his country mobilised for war relatively quickly (even if all the quality of the Red Army had been lost :x ) . The purges had nothing to do with the economy. The purges were the mass killing of enemies (or at least those who suspected of being) of Stalins. Alot of those killed where members of the Red Army (from all ranks) as well as leading politicians, communist party members & anyone else who was considered 'enemies of the people'. In the end its estimated that during the main period of the purges ('37 & '38) around 1.2 Million people died either by firing squad or due to their treatment in the Siberian Gulags. Long story short the purges had nothing to do with the economy. The 5 year plans were the set brutally swift nation wide plans to drag USSR into the 20th century kicking and screaming. The plans were successful in the sense that they helped Soviet industial & economic strength sky-rocket, but they cost the USSR alot in terms of lives lost.

Actually Stalins pre-war purges greatly weakened Russia's military power as he killed so many of his own Generals that he had to replace them with far inferior skilled/inexperienced replacements.

I'd disagree Stalin was a shrewd political operator. From the very moment he was made General Secretary of the Communist Party (which was though of as a worthless position) in the 20's he slowly but surely filled the party with those loyal to him & gradually began to turn them against his rivals (Trotsky particularly). As soon as he had that post he used and abused it to consolidate his own power - the guy really knew how to manipulate others to gain the best possible advantage for himself. Then again after the war he did it again at Potsdam when he used FDR's weakening health to his advantage & virually secured East Europe for the USSR. In terms of who was the most brutal I'd say Stalin because basically the man had no heart. He was famously the man who coined the phrase "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" and who upon hearing his own son had been captured by the Nazi's stated that he had no son. I'd say Stalin was worse because of how he consolidated his power (via the Purges) and was then able to kill at will. I read somewhere that Beria(who was Stalins most infamous NKVD chief) was even given daily targets for execution numbers that had to be adhered to. Don't get me wron Hitler was truly evil but I consider Stalin worse since he created the power structure to keep him in power for as long as he lived where as Hitler was erratic & couldn't even control his closest allies towards the end.

You're completely right and it's the saddest thing. Instead making a positive contribution to the world, the drug corporation(s) who find a way to fight (by either cure or medicine) HIV/AIDS will just sit back and make a killing from these drugs while watching literally tens of millions of poor uneducated people (including children) from all over the world diea slow and horrible death fromthis disease. You may see this hypothesis as far fetched but it is the most likely outcome if science is able to battle this disease in any strong way.

I remember him, it was all over the newspapers for days. I doubt it was true though, I think he may have been mis-diagnosed originally.

What is it that the mass media shows that you feel is unethical? I'm not particularly against what you've said as my response would depend on what you're refering to but your point takes me back to what was said about morality in the Presidential Election thread (there can be no real absolute morality).

Each person defines their own morality. While certain cultures & religions propose a certain morality everyone won't automatically go along with that morality (even members of that specific group. Thats why there is constant discussion & debate over what is legal, as what is immoral to one person isnt immoral to another person. Just look at the attrocities that are commited in the name of religion.

A prequel of Unbreakable from Samuel L Jackson's perspective would be good. You could follow his mad search for his 'superhero'.