Ginger_Warrior

I don't believe you should follow every single thing the party says - you still have your own opinions. But pretending like you don't have to follow a certain party to make your opinions known is pretty foolish. In this country, we have two major parties - Labour and the Conservatives. I am a socialist. The Labour party sure as hell isn't socialist, but it is the only party whose views I agree with which stands a chance of forming a government. Sure, maybe on principle I should vote for Respect, but this is politics. All split-off groups like Respect do is weaken the left-wing. It'd be counter-productive for me to vote them.

I'm not going to call you uneducated, although it is clear you've never done Biochemistry. That would be presuming all particles have the same mass - they don't. If you accept that an object's ability to draw other objects towards it (its gravity - which for the matter isn't 'produced' either) is relative to its mass, then a heavier particle will be able to attract a lighter particle dense-wise towards it. Particles can be anything from tiny, near-massless electrons to the relatively heavier neutron. Therefore, it is entirely plausible for one particle (a neutron) to have enough gravity to draw in another particle (an electron). I'm not saying that's what happened, but it disproves your argument nonetheless. If particles couldn't pull in other particles towards it, atoms wouldn't exist, and life as we know it wouldn't either. No one's said life came from a rock. You're treating life as if it were some abstract force. This is science you're arguing with - not religion. :roll: My knowledge would lead me to believe that nitrogen-containing compounds would eventually have developed into amino acids, which would in turn have reacted to form proteins. Mix this with the extreme conditions of the time, and you have a cocktail of chemicals which allows for the development of the very first cell. The cell reproduces through mitosis, and unicellular organisms develop.The unicellular organisms evolve and adapt to provide a higher chance of survival through natural selection. This is where life begins. Compare that in-depth theory to religion's theory of "God put us here". So there you go! Life does not come from a rock. Those species which do not develop a mutation to survive and pass on their alleles to the next generation will ultimately die out. The dinosaurs for instance. Congratulations on understanding evolution - here's your Dual Award Science GCSE! =D>

Since when? Since the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Laws are open to interpretation anyway, especially international laws, although I did find this very interesting Article: As I said, interpret that as you will, but I read that as "since we are in a Treaty which (presumably) has no provision regarding its termination and does not provide for withdrawal or denunciation, and since the EU has admitted numerous times that withdrawal of some States is a possibility (complying with clause [a]), so long as we provide the EU Member States with a 12 month notice period, and we publicly denounce the Treaty, we can withdraw from the EU at any point". You'd think a Treaty supposedly as restricting and controlling as that would have that argument made against it by the main political opposition parties of this country (The Conservatives and Lib Dems). It seems strange, therefore, not one party in the opposition has made the point you're making. In fact, I don't think I've even heard UKIP make this point.

Since when?

^ Wow, I'm to the left of Lenin! :

What you have to understand is that the most significant amount of pollution doesn't come from high-polluting industry. Pollution is relative to how many people live in an area, therefore, it is the general public driving around in cars and heating their homes who are contributing most to gas emissions. Now of course, I'm not suggesting they should stop completely, but history shows that the public depend too much on science and technology, as a way of evading their own responsibilities. If scientists start proclaiming they can fix global warming by developing new technology, there'll be no incentive for anyone to improve their own efficiency, let alone businesses; more emissions will continue to be pumped, regardless of how much technology you develop. Solar panels are alright, but you need something to transport them - typically lorries. Wouldn't it be more carbon neutral to put them on a train instead? As you said, public transport should be one of the main priorities of government to tackle gas emissions. In other words, we need to look at ways of reducing our logistic dependency on fossil fuels. To me, the promise of new technology seems a way to shift the debate away from the state's responsibility to improve energy efficiency. We should be investing into public transport to make it cheaper, providing grants to those who wish to make improvements to their home in order to improve energy efficiency (such as wind turbines, solar panels, insulation etc.), and encouraging households to use less energy, in the form of tax credits* and public education, by basic measures such as turning all appliances off at the plug socket at night, and turning all lights off. Leave the technology developing to private companies. With global warming firmly set as an issue the modern-day public are aware of, they really don't need public money as an incentive to develop said technology. [hide=*]'Tax credit' refers to the British definition. I realise the term varies depending on which country you live in[/hide]

There's two fundamental flaws in your argument here. Firstly, your belief that an investment into research is the answer to society's increased usage of fossil fuels. The issue with CO2 emissions is not that there is no way of going about our everyday lives without emitting these gases - we can and we have been able to since the dawn of man. It is that society, in general, feels that the detrimental effects of fossil fuels are counterbalanced by the increase in industrial production, economic growth, electric power and a general improvement in their quality of life. In this sense, most people don't genuinely care about the state of the planet in a hundred years' time - they won't be living then - they live for now. Secondly is the analysis that an increase in fossil fuel prices is a bad thing in this scenario. Surely, higher prices will force demand down, which will act to reduce emissions anyway? You're placing far too much faith in science and technology when that isn't the problem. The problem is society's attitude, an attitude which will be influenced for the better by such a scheme. It may not be popular, but someone has to take action and I commend Kevin Rudd for taking this bold step. I have to wonder, if the Labour Party over here weren't as politically weak as it is , could we take similar action? Finally, if you really feel that concerned about petrol prices, blame the oil companies in the Middle-East which, while pretending to be independent companies to avoid anti-monopoly laws, act together in order to keep prices up and make themselves as much money as possible. We have to tackle this de facto monopoly before we can hope to bring down petrol prices significantly.

OK, if you can get enough people to have this tournament... :? I'm free whenever, usually. No plans at the moment.

Gordon Brown is to the right of Angela Merkel? He's not exactly socialist but I think that's going a bit too far... :? Anyways, as if you needed to know: [hide=My results][/hide]

Technically gravity doesn't actually suck. Anyway, I think by saying that you're not really being yourselves. If you're so non-judgemental and not-jock-ish then you'd understand that not all girls are like that, and just as there are a few guys such yourselves who are comparatively mature against people of your own age, there are also girls who are comparatively mature compared to most of their counterparts. Just as much as you're sitting here saying, "All girls go for jock guys", they're sitting somewhere else thinking, "All guys go for cheerleaders". I hope when you said jockish you meant the usual jock personality. Well what else could I mean?

Basically, it means you lean towards the left-wing of the political spectrum. You're attracted more towards Socialism (left-wing) than Conservatism (right-wing). The vertical axis corresponds about how much liberty and freedom you believe people should have in balance to how much responsibility the government has over day-to-day life. You're pretty bang up in the middle between the two. Perhaps you believe the state has a responsibility to protect people, but not the expense of things such as free trade and speech?

Does this other girl actually know you've never kissed before? If she does, I'm sure she'd understand you not getting it right the first time. If you do mess up, and it really bothers her THAT much, just tell her. To be honest... it comes almost naturally. Just take it a pace you feel comfortable with and take it from there. Everyone has their own style to it, so there's no one way of kissing someone. Don't worry about it. The worst thing you can possibly do is work yourself up over this. Note: If this post makes no sense, bare in mind it's 23:02 my time, I'm shattered and I'm practically throwing tea down me to stay awake. -.-

I'll just say this: If you do go out, don't take her to a theme park. Surprisingly, I'm speechless... :shock:

Instead of thinking the EU as some sort of massive organisation, think of it as a series of inter-related alliances between multiple countries, which is essentially how it started life out as. A common defence force is a sensible part of any alliance, made so that in the event of a war, the countries within the alliance can react immediately to the foreign presence. It doesn't mean the armies are going to join up as one and attack with the same unanimous objectives though, as proven by the fact there is no mention of a common army in the part of the Treaty l0l0lpur32 specified. If we're opposing the EU because of this, then let's also withdraw from NATO and the UN. How is "3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union" not effectively making a common army? Because that line in itself doesn't explain what for. Would you care to point out where this bit of the Treaty is so I can actually read up on the context it's placed in?

Looking at your stats though, it would take... 20 minutes to level up a skill? For those of who would take much longer, we just can't be bothered. It's alright making lots of content to draw in new, fresh players, but you need to give them something to do after the novelty has worn out. A lack of new opportunities in the higher levels really makes this game boring. :? seeing as the only stats I like are those above level 65...then longer than 20 minutes #-o And i don't see point of grinding out farming levels/rcing etc. because they are incredibly boring.. -.- so save your high level snobbery and comparing for people that care thank you =D> If you take my opinion personally, that's really not my problem. I was pointing out facts. Some of your skills (Hunter for example) would take next to no time to level. With your stats, you can't have done all quests. I have. There's not a lot for me left to achieve without spending hours in front a screen, bored witless grinding up levels. I'd rather watch golf, if the truth be told.

Looking at your stats though, it would take... 20 minutes to level up a skill? For those of who would take much longer, we just can't be bothered. It's alright making lots of content to draw in new, fresh players, but you need to give them something to do after the novelty has worn out. A lack of new opportunities in the higher levels really makes this game boring. :?

Instead of thinking the EU as some sort of massive organisation, think of it as a series of inter-related alliances between multiple countries, which is essentially how it started life out as. A common defence force is a sensible part of any alliance, made so that in the event of a war, the countries within the alliance can react immediately to the foreign presence. It doesn't mean the armies are going to join up as one and attack with the same unanimous objectives though, as proven by the fact there is no mention of a common army in the part of the Treaty l0l0lpur32 specified. If we're opposing the EU because of this, then let's also withdraw from NATO and the UN.

He said 'intelligent', not omniscient. No surprise really. As you become more educated you start to question beliefs such as religion more and therefore become more resistant and sceptical to those beliefs. We've known this for centuries, but it's nice to know the Telegraph's caught up with the world. :roll:

Technically gravity doesn't actually suck. Anyway, I think by saying that you're not really being yourselves. If you're so non-judgemental and not-jock-ish then you'd understand that not all girls are like that, and just as there are a few guys such yourselves who are comparatively mature against people of your own age, there are also girls who are comparatively mature compared to most of their counterparts. Just as much as you're sitting here saying, "All girls go for jock guys", they're sitting somewhere else thinking, "All guys go for cheerleaders".

Politicians can altar the constitutional framework as they see fit. There may be certain safeguards, such as the Irish reliance on referenda, but of course a politician can change the constitutional framework. Where on Earth do you get that this case is otherwise? OK, it's clear you can't explain a fairly simple point. I'll drop this one here. Surely, the lack of truth in either campaign shows how the public can be so easily influenced, thus showing how unable they were at understanding the Treaty for themselves in the first place! There is little, if not no evidence, of any shift in power moving to Brussels with this Treaty. Its main priority is to set in stone common values between all members of the EU, and to reduce the amount of 'red tape' in the EU's decision processes (far from your claim of it making the EU more bureaucratic). Is it not the case that we still have the right to set our own laws, we still have the right to govern ourselves, we still have the right to elect our own representatives, and we still have full control of our own Armed Forces? Where is the evidence of the EU turning into the centralised, militarised bureaucratic machine that you are so adamant is coming without rejection of this Treaty?

Lucky Germany... very lucky. That's all I'm saying. They didn't annoy me half as much as the BBC One voiceover guy. Why was he telling us what was up and disrupting the commentary. Funnily enough, I don't care if there's a storm in Vienna when the radio's working just fine. Radio commentary was better too. They actually talk. -.-

Diarrhoea is potentially lethal... clearly you've never heard of cholera. :roll:

I think major changes which change the constitutional framework should be put to a referendum, everything else done by representatives. You've completely evaded my question by repeating yourself. Where is the difference between constitutional matters and any other matters involving the state? Stupid example, I don't know why I'm even quoting this part of the post. Stupid because you can't argue against it? Strange logic. I was merely providing a historical example of where public opinion has been wrong in the light of elitism. I'm not suggesting elitism is the way to go forward in all walks of life, or even that it's 'nice', but it exists (however much you might deny it) and does so for a very good reason. Do you honestly believe that if a country had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the majority of people would even be able to understand it? If you do, you're delusional, quite frankly. I also find it very strange you campaign to uphold your vetoes, which traditionally have always blocked the will of smaller countries against larger countries, and then wave the 'elitism' card at anyone who opposes the concept of referendum. Highly hypocritical. Which is why I support the existance of the EU, but don't support the direction in which it seems to be going (a militarised single European state) I said each country had a right to march into Zimbabwe, not an obligation. If Ireland is so proud of its neutral stance, then why didn't it follow the direction that Switzerland took, and withdraw from the EU altogether? Joining the EU itself isn't neutral, therefore, any argument against the EU involving sacrifice of neutrality becomes very weak.

A quick search of Urbandictionary would have saved the need for this post: I would write out an in-depth analysis of what I think, but I frankly can't be bothered. I'm honest like that. However, if you're stupid, you'll go and have sex with her. If you're wise and want the friendship to last, you won't, for that very reason. The way you describe her, she's desperate for it. No offence, but that's the reason she's come to you here. Otherwise, she'd ask you out instead of only asking for sex. I personally wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot barge poll. Her attitude is all wrong.

The reason I think there should be referendums is because of the major changes to the constitutional framework, and loss of sovereignity. That argument would have some validity if the Lisbon Treaty actually meant any loss of sovereignty. We've been over this countless times - it doesn't. You make it sound like there's only two points on this dichotomy - total democracy or total autocracy. If what you're saying is people should have a referendum because anything less would be nearing dictatorship, then what's the point in representation at all? Instead of just constitutional affairs, why not put everything to a referendum? There have been several examples in the past where a few elites have known better than the public. The decision not to immediately retaliate to German bombing after the Blitz during WWII would be one such example. Had the opinion of the elites not overruled public opinion there, we may not have had the liberty to hold this discussion. In many cases, the public doesn't know best. Such a claim is the result of scaremongering by sensationalist Eurosceptics. There is nothing in this Treaty about vetoes, and anyone studying Europe from any point of view would see that total unification of Europe is impossible given the huge differences each country has with each other. The EU is a way for the whole of Europe to unite and have an influence in the world. Otherwise, we'd be 28 tiny, insignificant countries incapable of questioning the US or China. For example, look at Zimbabwe. The opposition has taken refuge in the Dutch embassy. If Mugabe even attempts to raid the embassy, the whole of the EU instantly has a right to march in with troops, not just the Dutch. That is why the EU is needed.