Oy_the_Great

of course #-o Good one! Good ol' Wilson.

It certainly does not. Humo, probably the trendiest and most left-ish magazine here commented on it that it was a fantastic movie, without superhuman bravery, but rather realistic acts of survival. In the real flight, a guy also says "let's do this" or "let's roll"; the same quote comes back in the movie, but not in a typical Hollywood way, more something in between, nothing heroic. That only is pretty much enough evidence to say that this movie isn't about spectacle, but more like a true documentary of what happened inside the plane. I'm looking forward to see it.

Cool! I'd love it if you added my namy, but make the O look like this Mr.: :-s <-- I love him :D And don't add 'the great'; I just had to write that behind Oy because RS and tip.it names required more than 2 letters.. :(

The beach volley thing: The Beach? The kitchen ware thing: Shrek? Still no idea about the dentist one though.

French kissing eh? : *cough* i was 12! you dont do that at that age.... at least not when i was twelve :pray: Oh, I'm not talking about tongue kissing, I'm talking about kissing French people :3>

French kissing eh? :

DAAU: A Sin So Nasty Apocalyptica: Deathzone 2 great bands that combine classical with hard rock/metal; both more instrumental than lyrical. Apocalyptica is a well-known band, but DAAU is a little less known, though they're better, IMHO.

double post..

The movie is going about flight United 93, and the family of the victims agreed on making the movie. Paul Greengrass asked them before starting the shooting. Some of the closely involved people actually play in the movie, like the chief of the control tower during the events. The relatives and friends of the unfortunate people aboard the plane all agree that it is a beautiful movie, not at all Hollywood-ish. There's no overacting, just realistic heroism of the people who try to take back the plane from the terrorists. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475276/ IMDB's reviews in the lnik!

Yesterday, while studying, I've been listening to the entire Bob Marley collection again, or at least the part of it I have. 10 hours of relaxation :)

The world tends to unfold as it should, it's a beautiful arrangement. Don't make me pissed. It's not my fault large bodies of text scare people.

:wall: ARRRRRGGG!!!! evry single time i ride in the freaken car i hear that song!!! i * hate it!!!! :wall: Hehe, a friend of mine used to play that song over and over again. And that hit from James Blunt as well. :| Oh well, at the time she was my girlfriend, so I claimed I liked those songs too :-w

:) You've changed your point of view on that matter I see Piano. I remember you saying pretty harsh things about suicide in a few of our PMs. I'm glad you did.

I can play your blame-game as well Auberean. Thanks for insulting me. ------- So what you're trying to say is: don't believe the government? That's great. Then we can just as well give up our entire system. The government not disagreeing with the numbers is enough information to know that they're correct. I don't say you have to believe everything the government says, on the contrary, but numbers about the deficit aren't something you can lie about. If a government does, sooner or later the truth will be known and that government will lose all of their credibility. So they won't lie, or not a lot. ------- No I didn't: ------- I did not. Read what I said and you'll find your answer. But if you're not interested in scrolling up: it's very difficult to correctly calculate the governmental expenses, G, as well as T, the total taxes. But there are many different, independent institutions who do that. If you would read some kind of economical magazine, you would find ample of these calculations. BUT once you can more or less agree on a certain G and T; the deficit calculation is easy. ------ Well, it of course depends on what your government plans on doing about it. Belgium used to have a way too high debt as well, about 30 years ago. The government solved the problem by adopting a budgetary policy; which is simply another word for spending a lot less and using the available money to repay these debts. It's not good for the progress of a nation; the GDP will most likely stay stable or perhaps lower a bit even, but that's the price of debts... Another option is a tax raise, which is more likely in the US, I think. But don't expect this tax raise to be obvious; that would be bad publicity. It'll probably involve a whole new concept so that you barely notice it, yet oyu do lose more money. I don't think it's a drama though, the entire western world is facing a very difficult future because of the countless problems to come. Not only is there the generation problem; too many people become too old, but also the problems with the overpopulation in general, nature disasters, the rise of new nations such as China, etc. They all need to be dealt with, and I'm sure they will be, in an appropriate way. And now I'm going to stop wasting my time. No one reads the larger part of what I say anyway.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're one of those people who think Marilyn Manson is Satan I see. Well, what he sings about is mostly true; he's not preaching evil thoughts, and I assume you think he would, because he looks like a cross breed between a man and a demon. Try to look past the facade. Beautiful people are often the real demons.

That, and what I said :) Politicians don't just think about their popularity, you know. I'm sure a good bunch of them actually care about our welfare.

I rarely ever listen to the radio anymore. Too many commercials. The music my station plays is nearly always good music though, but I hate those talking shows on the radio. I don't care about what Kelly's opinion about the new song is darn it. So now it's always a mix of the music on my computer, or just a CD.

It pains me to see someone with Bill Hicks in their sig say that. "I have never seen two people on pot get in a fight because it is * impossible. 'Hey, buddy!' 'Hey, what?' End of argument." I'm talking hard drugs.

My god, you're one of the most irritating people I've ever met on the forum. 1/ it is easy as that: if G>T than B will continue to rise 2/ calculating G and T is hard, but it's something that's done by institutions, so I can't know how it works either. 3/ you need to read everything, not just the parts you think you can show off with. Besides, if your brain doesn't allow you to think a little further than being cynical, you have nothing to search in this thread. As the matter of fact, not on these fora. You're not contributing anything here.

I'm not even going to answer such a dumb question. How does a doctor know a patient has cancer? Why do engineers know how much weight they can put on a certain point? Why do archaelogists search here, and not there? And finally: how do economists know how big the deficit is? Information about such things is calculated; there are a number of agencies that do nothing but calculate the total tax income, the total governmental spendings etc. They get the information they need from governmental institutions as well, of course. They can't spy on them to know how much the government spends on the thousands of things it does. Some numbers are estimations, when there's a large chance of estimating it right, most numbers are simply calculations. Is it that hard to understand?

I think I'm part of that group. The sad thing is that girls have to be pretty clever to know the difference between a jerk and an honest guy. They nearly always choose the jerk #-o

Same here. According to GSW, the USA has at least a $9 Trillion deficit? I really want to find out how you know that exactly... For crying out loud! Can't you people bother to read what others have posted? I just answered it. According to my course 'introduction to economics', deficits are calculated in some way like this: Now, if after many years, G is still bigger than T, the deficit keeps growing. Easy as that.

I vote STICKY! Thanks for keeping us up-to-date Bubs, I don't have much time to actively search the web for info like this, so it's nice to be able to read a short summary of what's happening with Oxfam and how they make progress. I would like to give my opinion on the matter though; the EU helps European farmers by donating a certain amount of money, mostly based on their return, and the EU does this to keep the farming industry in Europe alive. Without the subsidies these farmers would immediately have to raise their prices and thus they would lose all of their competing strength, so they'd have to give up their jobs. Now, one of the things that Oxfam doesn't like are these subsidies, I believe. What I want to say, is not that Oxfam has to change their policy, because it's good to have rather radical organisations to alert the world, but I hope they would be more realistic. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but do they have a keen plan on how the poor countries can trade their way out of poverty? Because it really isn't that easy. Due to the protectionist policy the EU, as well as the US, applies, these poor countries can't compete enough with the weallthy nations. But if we were to abolish the protectionistic measures, millions of European farmers would have to cease their jobs, and with them the entire industry that relies on them, such as manufactering industries etc. It would completely disrupt our economy. That is why those selfish nations don't agree many times with Oxfam and other organizations. If we would, we would soon face an unsolvable crisis. Although this clearly is selfish thinking, I actually rather search for other options to lift the wealth level in the poor countries than to measures that would annihilate our own economy. There must be certain ways to elevate poor countries out of their misery, or at least I hope so. I'm an idealist, but I'm not prepared to trade my future job and thus life for the job of an other person. It's harsh, but that's what I think.

Oh yeah! Wow, nice copy Merc! I compared the pictures with the cover, nicely done!

Calculating the GDP or GNP is incredibly complex, there are many methods for it, and you would most likely not understand them, unless you've studied them. Calculating taxes is far easier though, there are rather many different kinds of taxes, but that's as complex as it gets. I'm afraid I have no idea how calculating the amount of debt or the deficits work, but I can imagine it's not an easy sum either. I just happen to know the Belgian numbers, because, well, I study applied economics.