At 10/25/08 02:35 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote: My theory is this: Muslims are assholes.

They are certainly hyper-sensitive about everything, always pissing and moaning whenever something offends their faith, and the establishment can't wait to bend over backwards for them.

If they're that orthodox then they shouldn't be having anything to do with christmas, it being a (theoretically) christian festival and all.

Very few countries in the west truly qualify as democracies. Neither America or my own country, Britain, is a real democracy. To me democracy isn't just electing someone every few years who then has the right to do whatever the hell they like. To qualify as a true democracy, I believe there should be the right to hold recall votes to remove elected representatives before their term is completed, along with referenda, at least on the most important areas of national policy and particularly on anything that has constitutional implications.

Though despite all this it's still a lot more democratic here in the west than in most places. Better to elect our leaders than not be able to vote on anything!

I think it's likely that a coup will occur. Obviously it's not certain, but I can't help but get the feeling that history will repeat itself and we'll end up seeing a situation like in Chile when Allende was toppled.

At 8/24/08 08:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: It should, because it would show you that as was true in the past, the US is basically the only country willing/capable to do such a thing again.

I don't think it should have any bearing. WW2 happened a while back and most of what's happened in recent years has not been particularly promising. The US seemed quite willing to allow the IRA to raise funds freely on American soil, ingnoring British pleas to stop it. For all the bleating about the war on terror, the US seemed quite qilling to undermine our own war on terror. Then the US wants us to go to the lengths of fighting their wars. Though I blame that on our own spineless government for that rather than the US.

I'm not telling anyone to thank me. I was just saying the UK's position as it is today is largely due its relationship with the US. The UK owes the US as a whole quite a bit for its current prosperity and relatively powerful world position. So talking about a resurgent British empire, as if it would rule over the the English speaking world instead of the US, isn't very reasonable, because the US is currently the senior partner apparently.

You're taking it a bit seriously, everyone in this country knows the British Empire is long gone. They're only joking.

And the better option. A deterrent is a deterrent, but not all nuclear weapons and delivery systems are created equal as far as reliability, capability, specifically accuracy etc...

But is it worth sacrificing our independence over? I don't think it is. I'm sure we can create a perfectly good nuclear missile system by ourselves, maintained only by ourselves. Definitely worth it for a truly independent deterrent.

That's the thing, your country is unwilling to produce its own nuclear deterrent due to the money and effort involved, but at the same time unwilling to go without nukes. So your country got the best of both world's by depending on the US and benefiting from its relationship with the US.

Seems more like the worst of both worlds to me. We pay loads out for a nuclear deterrent (Though granted, probably less than an indigenous one), while not actually getting a fully independent deterrent out of it.

At 8/25/08 07:30 AM, ThePretenders wrote: The Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees human rights in a written document, something the U.K. has failed to do in its constitution. Having a good human rights record (free speech, abolishing cruel and unusual punishment etc.) is a prerequisite for membership. The EU has to enforce this because you can't let any country with a poor human rights record, like Turkey, without forcing them to make concessions on laws that hinder human rights. The UK knew what it was getting into when it signed it. It wasn't a big secret that there was going to be a supranational Europe.

When I look at what previous human rights legislation has been (Eg. a charter for terrorists, criminals, illegal immigrants, ect.) in this country, forgive me if I'm not overjoyed at the idea of yet more human rights bullshit. We've never needed human rights legislation, it's the Germans who acted like animals in WW2. Let them do the human rights grovelling if they wish, not us. As for Turkey, EU pressure on human rights issues has only served to strengthen the islamist parties in the country, so that one has been a bit of an own goal. Also, I don't think we really knew what we were getting into when we signed up. We were promised a trading bloc, but it slowly developed into the monster we know today. Besides, even if we did know that doesn't mean it should be the case that our internal affairs are interfered with.

Oh no, ze French and German conspiracy in Bruxelles to destroy ze Monarchy. The British and practically every country apart from the French, want to get rid of the Common Agricultural Policy because they benefit the least from it. If the UK was more enthusiastic, then they could bargain with them to reduce subsidies or even dismantle it all together, but as along as the UK remain aloof, the French and Germans will contunue to hold more influence in European decisions.

We never needed to reform the CAP as we've always has a rebate (One of the few good things Thatcher did). The rebate removed much our financial burden of the for the CAP. Of course, then Blair gave part of it away, the spineless twat.

Because the 'special relationship' mainly concerns foreign issues, but if you want to continue the illusion that a totally independent Britain can still hold great influence in world affairs, then be my guest because the UK will slip further down the power chain to the likes of China, Russia, and India in the future.

Is it necessarily a desireable thing to hold a position of massive influence in the world? Plenty of smaller countries do quite well for themselves, to quote the previous examples of Norway and Switzerland.

What I don't get about you Eurosceptic guys is that you complain and still vote for the three main parties (all of in favour of deeper integration, even the Tories (Maastricht, Single European Act)). If you want to leave the EU, then vote for UKIP in the general election.

I'll agree with that, I would never vote for any of the main parties, they all disgust me. Anyway, I don't want full withdrawal from the EU, I would rather us use our veto power to negotiate a kind of 'half in, half out' membership. I think we could manage it.

At 8/23/08 01:30 PM, ThePretenders wrote: The UK's natural home is with the EU. Over half of our trade is with the EU and it makes sense to deepen ties with the EU. By opting out of certain European legislations and directives, the influence of the UK is not as great as France or Germany. Too many Britons believe that the UK could still be independent and still be influential in world affairs, when the opposite is true.

Just because we trade with the EU doesn't mean we have to be swallowed by them. I don't see any point in getting dragged further into the EU project, particularly as the organisation has a habit of poking its nose into our internal affairs. For example, the EU insists that its member states must not have the death penalty. I'm against the death penalty but it's of no concern to anyone else if we have it or not. The idea that we'll somehow gain loads of influence in the EU by bending over and doing whatever the French and Germans want us to is an even bigger joke than the idea of this 'special relationship' with the US. The only times the EU has ever listened to us is when we've started being difficult, by opting out and vetoing. We'll be completely taken for a ride if we give into the EU.

I don't see the point in gaining independence from one power bloc only to give it to another. Hell, at least the US doesn't butt into our internal affairs.

At 8/24/08 02:36 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: 1) The US saved the UK in WWII, funding the vast majority of the war effort and doing more tactically/strategically.
2) The US forgave the majority of debt that the UK owed the US, which otherwise would have sabotaged prospects for future prosperity in Britain.
3) The US gave the UK loads of economic aid via the Marshal plan, free of charge. In fact, the UK got more than any other European country. About as much as France and Germany combined.

Yeah, thanks for all that (Though not to you specifically). Still, I don't think it should have any bearing on how we conduct our foreign policy today. It happened before even my parents were born and the vast majority of Americans who were alive then were only kids anyway. The ones who were really responsible for it are long dead. I don't see why we should show any gratitude just to the descendents of those who helped us.

4) The US is the reason the UK has nuclear weapons, the UK owes its nuclear arsenal to the US. It's almost entirely American-made components, most of it is actually US-owned but just leased to the UK. Therefore much of the deterrent capability the UK has, and its position as a recognized nuclear power is because of the US. This goes for other military technology as well.

I don't know about that. It's certainly been the case with the land-based nuclear missiles (Just US missiles stationed here, weren't even under our command), but I think it's a different matter with our SLBMs. Yes, they're supplied by America, but that's probably only because they were the cheaper option. The French were quite capable of making their own independent nuclear deterrent and that country's roughly the same size as ours with regards to economy and population. There's no reason why we couldn't do the same, so I think we need to stop the penny pinching and do it.

At 8/23/08 10:59 AM, Earfetish wrote: France isn't irrelevant and it has got even more excuse to be

True, but that's because France grew a spine. They might get mocked by some for being the 'surrender monkeys' but they're a hell of a lot more willing than the UK to stand up for their independence. I think it started after the US sided with Nasser in the Suez crisis. The French then realised that they can't rely on America and pursued their own independent foreign policy under de Gaulle, doing things like withdrawing from NATO's integrated command structure. Britain just went on doing doing whatever America says. We need to go our own way.

At 8/21/08 05:06 PM, olbornianhighpriest wrote:

Some neo-Nazis and die hard hollow earth believers believed that Hitler staged his own death and he and his most powerful government officials fled to Antartica in a submarine where they entered the hole and now live below the earth.

There's also a similar conspiracy theory that the Nazis fled to a secret moon base. Plus a little more here.

At 8/22/08 08:36 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Anyway, England doesn't reign, and never will again. English speaking countries combined currently do hold a dominant position in the world but this is because of the US. The UK, and England specifically, constitute a 2nd string participant. The UK today would be largely irrelevant were it not for its special relationship with the US.

We're irrelevant anyway. The idea that our international standing is somehow enhanced through getting ivolved in whatever wars America tells us to is a pathetic myth peddled by our own politicians. Obsequious crawling doesn't raise your international standing, it just turns you into a laughing stock with no dignity left. This 'special relationship' is only ever one way.

I think it would suit us a lot more to just leave the rest of the world to sort out it's own problems.

At 6/29/08 05:12 PM, mranarchy wrote: Chicken is a luxury, not a privilege or necessity !

They are living animals that can feel pain, a huge amount are kept in abominable conditions. they deserve a comfortable life before we eat them. HFW is trying to improve their living conditions...Oh no!-you might have to pay an extra 2 pounds to eat a bird that has'nt lived its entire live in a square foot box eating other chickens shit and mouldy grain.

It's easy for you to be talk about how chicken is a luxury, but not everyone can afford to be picky. The poorer members of society are challenged enough by their budgets. So the question you've got to ask is this: do you put animals before humans?

Ethical consumerism is a luxury that only the relatively wealthy can afford.

I'm going to have a bit of a bias here, my dad and older brother are in the police and they obviously have a lot of friends in the job, so I know a lot of police officers. Nearly all of them that I know are decent guys doing a difficult job. Particularly in this country, governments have always seemed intent on making the job more difficult for them, so much bureaucracy, targets which prevent them on focusing on the crimes which really matter and all the politically correct bullshit. The police have traditionally been respected among most of the population here, but all this crap is damaging public confidence in them.

As I said in a previous thread, you wouldn't necessarily need to deport all illegal immigrants. Most of them come for the jobs, so you crack down on those who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. Jail, massive fines, ect. When they can't get jobs, those already there will probably go back home on their own initiative and those thinking of sneaking in illegally would change their minds. Then it would be much easier to round up and deport those who remain, such as the ones involved with crime.

At 6/5/08 09:34 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: So let's weed them out and deport all 15 million of them!

At 6/5/08 11:27 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: So let's build a 3000-mile long concrete wall with barbed wire and guards!

You wouldn't necessarily need to go to the most drastic means to prevent illegal immigration (Though I don't think that increasing border security is a bad idea, my country could do with it). Obviously deporting about 15 million people would be very difficult and costly, so there are easier ways to do it. Look at what brings illegal immigrants to the developed world - jobs. If you started handing out prison sentences and massive fines to those who employ illegal immigrants, other potential employers would soon reconsider. Then when the jobs dry up so does the illegal immigration. Those who are already there go home as there's no work and those who were thinking of moving in illegally would change their minds for the same reason. Coupled with scricter border security, any developed country could soon put a stop to the bulk of illegal immigration. The only thing that isn't there is the political will.

At 5/19/08 10:20 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Americans actually generally like Brits... until they meet the vocal ones. Then the political monster rears its head and the British reveal themselves to be hateful, ignorant, hypocritical assholes whose entire belief system is practically based around blaming/berating Americans for every single thing, using double-standards and overt hypocrisy in the process.

You really are an idiot who has a very inflated view of the importance of his country. Believe it or not, British people don't generally spend every waking moment thinking about how evil America is, we tend to have better things to do. Most seem not to really care. I'm certainly indifferent.

At 5/20/08 08:40 AM, ThePretenders wrote: I hate the British with venom. Why?
The reasons:
1) Hypocrisy over integration. They expect the immigrants to assimiliate and learn the language but they go to Spain and live in concentrated areas of the Costa del Sol, eating fish and chips, watching football, and talking 'propa English'.

I agree with that, but the the British immigrants tend not to go demanding government funded translators in Spain as they know they won't get it. While over here, the authorities seem to fall over themselves trying to translate for everyone. Also, British immigrants tend not to get handouts from the Spanish state, while some (Though admittedly nowhere near all) immigrants to Britain get benefits.

2) Not open to other cultures and languages. They are the laziest people on Earth, when it comes to languages. They go to other countries and expect 'foreigners' (locals) to speak their language, when in fact they should attempt to communicate with them.

I think when you're living in someone else's country it's you who should be learning how to communicate with the locals, not the other way round. I don't see why ordinary people should have to change their ways for the sake of newcomers.

3) Most of them stink of alcohol. Every Friday, you have to encouter these foul smelling creatures outside the pub, throwing up and starting fights in city centres.

We're not all like that you know. My family aren't big drinkers and I know that my parents would kill me if I got drunk.

4) Hypocrisy over fiscal policy. The British want American levels of taxes to finance European levels of public spending with wait... low borrowing. "OMG GORDEN BROWNZ IS RAISIN TAXIS!!!! OMG SUM1 FINANCE THE NHS!!!!"

I will agree with that. People want services but they don't want to pay for them. I'd sooner see a rise in income tax, that would be a much fairer way of doing things than the current cack handed stealth taxes.

5) The Empire. The British went over to other lands and dominated them on an sclae unmatched by other countries (even worse than the Spanish). They settled in other lands, making up a significant part of South Africa's population (even excluding the Afrikaners). Not to mention displacing populations in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Yet they complain when about ethnic minorities, which make up 7% of the population, and if you actually venture outside the major cities, it's uncommon to find non-whites in small cities and towns.

The empire was a while ago, I don't see why it should play any role in our actions today. Even my parents weren't alive in the days of empire. If it suits us to do things like limit immigration, we should go ahead and do it regardless of any imperial past.

At 5/21/08 02:43 PM, Britkid wrote: I think that's something of a 'code' among developed democracies. You don't interfere in ours, we don't interfere in yours.

Not quite true unfortunately. Look at the EU. It's an international organisation of democratic nations dedicated to sticking their noses into other people's business. The EU always wants to interfere in our affairs when there's relatively little appetite among the British people to do the same.

As for the OP, I disagree with the idea of any other countries interfering in our domestic affairs, America included. I agree with a lot of what Nick Clegg said in that article, but I think that other countries should just butt out of what doesn't rightfully concern them. Being a sovereign country means you control your own affairs, unless you want us to be a full blown colony of the US. I know we're too much their lap dog at the moment (That can and should change) but I'd sooner we distance ourselves a bit from the US rather than be their permanent bitch. A country's constitution questions are best dealt with by their own people, interference would probably backfire.

Anyway, I wouldn't listen to a word the Lib Dems say when they talk about democracy. They were more than happy to deny the British people their say on the EU reform treaty (You know, the repackaged EU Constitution, the thing we were promised a referendum over). Democracy my arse, they're no better than rest of the political shower.

At 5/19/08 05:46 PM, HorseSperm wrote: kids who live around me did it.
They broke there legs and shit

I didn't know it was happening in America, I though it was a recent thing mostly restricted to this country. Also, you username rules.

Has anybody else heard of this incredibly stupid stunt? It's been making the news here in the UK, it's where people jump off things like bridges and cliffs to land in the water below. The problem is you never actually know how deep the water is, so you may end up landing in a couple of feet of water and badly injuring yourself. One guy was recently paralysed from the neck down, another from the chest down. Just over a week ago I saw five teenagers, they were about 14 and one of them was on the edge of a bridge about to chuck himself off into the water. I talked him out of it, telling him of all these horror stories of people who's lives are so bad they'd end up begging to die. He ended up being too scared to do it and climbed back over to safety. One of the other kids said I was just being a geek. I asked him why he wasn't so willing to jump off himself, but he didn't say anything else other than making some comment about me dressing like a geek.

I really can't understand why anybody would do this, and I can't understand why a 'friend' would be cheering someone else on to jump off.

At 5/4/08 04:07 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: How much does it cost you?
For public liability it costs about $1500, add collision and bump it up to $3000.
That's in Canadian Dollars BTW.

I haven't got a quote just yet, but my 21 year old brother pays £1500 ($3000 Canadian). My dad thinks it would be more than £2000 for me, ouch. :(

I just passed my driving test first time, go me. But the problem now is getting a car. Car insurance in the UK is so expensive for newly qualified 17 year old male drivers like me. Apparantly we're prone to accidents, fucking boy racers. Plus I'm not getting my parents handing it to me on a plate, I've got to get it myself. Any other young drivers from the UK know of good insurers? I'm probably going to learn how to ride a motorbike next, that would be more affordable for me, plus it would be a handy skill to have anyway.

At 5/4/08 03:16 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: I cannot fathom why so many people voted BNP as a protest vote, considering that both Brown and Cameron have spoken out against them. When you get two people (allegedly) opposed on the political spectrum uniting on something (Blair and Menzies Campbell also spoke out against them, meaning at one point all three major political parties actually agreed on something), that's usually a hint that perhaps they might be onto something.

If I were going to vote for a small party, the leaders of the main parties speaking out against it would make me all the more determined to vote for it! I have absolutely no respect for the leaders of the main parties, so their opinions wouldn't sway me in any way. If anything, I would consider it to be an indication that the small party may actually be able to challenge the dominance and vested interests of the established political class. If you hate the main parties there's no point in voting for a smaller party that's pretty much the same, you might as well not bother voting. Also, the idea of Brown and Cameron being opposed on the political spectrum is laughable.

There were plenty of opportunities for protest votes on the ballot - Green, Left List, UKIP (who used the protest vote to gain some publicity, but little to no influence, in 2001-3), Christian Choice, English Democrat...oh fuck it, Green, Left List, or a bunch of nutters and scumbags.

True, but the best way to scare the shit out of the main parties is to vote the BNP. That still wouldn't be enough to ever get me to vote for them, but I can see why people do.

The type where there's a soldier from one side (Originally Israeli) firing from the front of a pram, with one from the other side (Originally Palestinian) hiding behind a pram. You get a lot of ones derived from that with the sides switched round, or different sides added. Though I don't see them quite as much these days....

At 5/3/08 08:35 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: You can tell the difference between the SNP and the Tories?

That's true, the SNP seems to be more concerned with crawling to big business like the rest of the parties, sucking up to the CBI, rather than improving the situation for the people. Then just look at the bus thing. The SNP promised to regulate the buses, but that was mysteriously dropped from their manifesto when they recieved a £500,000 donation from Stagecoach boss and everyone's favourite homophobe Brian Souter. Initially I expected a little better (But not too much) from the SNP, but they're for sale just like the rest of them.

At 5/4/08 01:17 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: The worst thing of all is that my neck of the woods saw Boris get half the vote, and the BNP rank 4th overall - luckily overall the Greens were Best of the Rest, but it worries the piss out of me that people are turning to the BNP. So, people are being seduced by the policies of a party who regularly have their members charged for racist and anti-Semetic sloganeering, and have copies of Mein Kampf under their beds?

I doubt that people are being seriously seduced by the more overt racism of the BNP, it's probably more of a protest vote. Although I wouldn't vote for them, I can understand why a lot of ordinary people might be tempted to. The main parties have become barely distinguishable and have only treated ordinary people with contempt. The blame lies with them.

As for the result, I'm indifferent. I hate Red Ken and am glad to see him gone, but I don't care much for Boris either. I probably wouldn't have bothered voting. Local elections over here are in a few days and I'm too young to vote. If I wasn't I wouldn't bother anyway, there seems little point.

At 4/14/08 05:13 PM, Shadow-1409 wrote: Its like noone plays hungry hungry hippos anymore, :(

Ooooh, I loved that! Also I liked Mousetrap and Monopoly.

Sign of the times, it's nearly always one of two types of people who shriek about racism. First there's the politically correct whites who have this big racism complex where they think it's their crusade to challange what they percieve as racism. Then there's certain minority people who like to wallow in victimhood and take advantage of PC attitudes to get away with acting like total wankers. This kind of thing is exactly why I don't really give a shit about racism.

Swearing was completely banned in my school. I'm in sixth form college now and it's frowned upon but nobody really does anything about it. I don't swear that much anyway.

I was just thinking about drinking ages. 21 in America, 18 here in the UK, 16 in some European countries. What do you think it should be, and should it be strictly enforced? I got in some trouble at home for going to a nightclub, which I thought was rather stupid as I'm 17 and I'll be old enough in less than a year anyway. Thoughts? (Yes, I'm very bored)

Whoops. Well ain't I a dummy?

I don't play computer games too much these days, but I'm thinking that when the prices go down a little I'll want to get one of the newer consoles (Either PS3 or Xbox 360, not too keen on the Wii). Though I have a question regarding online play. For either console, is online play free? Can I just buy the console, plug it in with my existing internet connection and play online without any charges?

At 3/29/08 10:57 AM, Mr-Pope wrote: I disagree, in most instances of Islamic terrorism, they have used Western interference/intervention in the Middle East as the impetus for/justification of their attacks.

I won't dispute that they use it as propaganda at the moment, but I'm sure that even if we did give in on this, they'd only use something else to justify themselves. I'll quote Mohammed Sidique Khan, one of the London bombers in his suicide video. ""They (Moderate clerics) tell us ludicrous things like `you must obey the law of the land'. "How on earth did we conquer lands in the past if we were to obey by this law?" I think that illustrated there is more on these people's minds than simply ending western involvement in muslim countries. Again, look at that example I gave over the threats towards the cartoonists.

But weren't the majority of those linked to the prolonged French involvement in Algeria? Not an expert on that like so happy to be corrected.

France got out of Algeria decades ago and haven't been back since.

I'm certainly not trying to justify their actions morally, the London bombers were a bunch of despicable dickheads from Leeds or wherever, but every single reason they did give for their actions was down to British interference in the Middle East. What they're saying can't just be ignored in favour of putting it down to "they hate the way we live" or whatever (which I'm not saying you're doing). And whether you like it or not, they do feel an allegiance to "their people".

The reasons they gave, which I wouldn't trust too much. They'd be looking to make whatever short term victories they can, and if they beat us by forcing us to withdraw from Iraq they'd only look to the next fight. I refer you again to my quote of Sidique Khan. Also, by legitimising their loyalty to 'their people' rather than their countries, you will be making it a lot easier for people to see all muslims living in the west as a fifth column. People may end up drawing the conclusion that a muslim can never be trusted to be a law abiding, loyal citizen of a country as their loyalty will always ultimately be to the islamic ummah. A society fragmented like that could go down a dangerous path.

I was initially talking about those actually from the Middle East though, i.e those who are actually being directly effected, rather than European Muslims.

You can't just neatly compartmentalise like that. Islamism is international, it's a muslim thing rather than a middle eastern thing. Most of the stuff in Wilders' film was more to do with muslims living in Europe than muslims elsewhere anyway.

Yeah no doubt, that's unjustifiable. And it feels laboured to even make the point, but these groups are of course a product of outside interference, and can only garner major support because of the way they can implement a siege-mentality in their followers (they hate us, they hate Islam, look at what they're doing! etc. etc.), which isn't hard to do at all when we're off on disastrous foreign rampages around the globe.

Ah, so it's our fault they act the way they do? Islamism has been on a steady march for the last two to three decades, ever since the islamic revolution in Iran. Look at the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, that was before most people even knew the first thing about islam, so you can't go claiming the siege mentality on that one. I would be more willing to agree to this siege mentality idea if the bombers had came from disadvantaged backgrounds, but that clearly wasn't true. The 9/11 bombers were educated people, mostly on comfortable incomes. Saudis as well, and while American troops have been stationed there for a while they've never been what anyone could consider a colonising force. The London bombers were mostly well adjusted people who had previously been part of mainstream society. One of them wasn't even a muslim at all until he converted. I think it's less to do with foreign policy and more to do with the weakness our government, tolerating the ideology.

There are always doomsday predictions. The first one I remember was new year's day 2000. Then new year's day 2001. Then some eclipse. Plus others that haven't come to mind immediately. People never seem to learn.