Whats worse ( or at least equally as bad ) is that these rules also apparently apply to children and babies. There have been numerous stories about families having their passports denied because their toddlers are illegally smiling in their photos.
Let's face it though there is just no telling what these druggists are capable of, most of the time they don't even know what they're doing or how crazy they're acting. Now you daughter might not spend much time in the druggists ghetto but you can bet they're all busy murdering, raping and robbing each other the whole time down there and your daughter would suffer the same fate were she to cross paths with a druggist desparate to score his next fix.
Druggism is clearly a massive problem for the US but whilst it's still confined to a few hellish druggist ghettos in most cities and doesn't really have much of an impact on regular god fearing folk well then I think prohibition is the wise course. Hell, the last thing I'd want was my daughter being able to try whack herself, getting addicted and ending up selling herself in the ghetto. The church already ventures into those areas and helps those who do want to be saved and that is about as much as any man can do.
This is the Jackie Smith who is also too scared to walk around her own consituency without a bullet proof jacket on, even when she has a police escort !
It looks like she's basically planning on ignoring this ruling anyway, things will stay as they are she says, until she has considered her options.
I thought Blunkett and his crazy ID scheme were bad but this woman really does take the biscuit, she is immune to debate and is quite clearly going to carry on doing exactly whatever she likes until someone stops her.
It's because one of the first things the Labour government did in power was sign up to the EU Human Rights charter which has, amusingly, caused them and their control freak legislation no end of trouble ever since.
I'd say it most definitely was dangerous driving, people on mobiles don't just randomly speed up and slow down they also tend to drift between lanes and generally behave unpredictably which is problem when most drivers base a lot of their decisions on what they think other cars might be doing rather than what they are actually doing.
Presumably though there are already buses in London, I live in Birmingham and although there is no congestion charge for going into the city centre here there are hundreds upon hundreds of buses. There are in fact so many buses that during peak hours and on Saturdays there is an enormous virtually stationary queue of buses slowly crawling through the city centre and this is a huge problem both practically from a "I want to get out of town and home now" point of view and no doubt an environmental one as the stop start driving can hardly be eco friendly.
If there is really such a huge capacity for increasing the number of buses in London then the congestion charge would certainly be a great thing but I suspect this is not the case and that simply adding more buses without widening or improving the roads is not going to speed up anyones journey time. The solution isn't to simply swap buses for cars but to actually spend lots of money on building more tubes or changing the layout of city centres to make transport within them more efficient, unless the congestion charge is raising money to do this I still can't see how it's helping anyone.
There's no doubt efficient transportation is necessary in general not just for large events but I'm not clear on what that has to do with the congestion charge.
Not being a Londoner I don't know the ins and outs of the scheme but unless all the money gained in revenue is being spent on more tube lines or wider roads and not on merely running the congestion charge scheme I can't see how it will deliver more efficient transportation.
A lot of garages now have glass walls so you can sit in the waiting area sipping your coffee and watching the mechanics work on your vehicle. I'll bet the mechanics weren't exactly happy with this situation but if you are transparently doing your work properly it's a far more effective way of impressing customers than not showing them exactly what you are doing in case it goes wrong.
I'm not sure 'insurgents' is the right word here, it sounds as though you meant to say "the subjugated population of the defeated enemy whos country you have invaded".
By all means invade somewhere and treat everyone as your enemy but why stop at just suspecting them of hating you, they probably do and they're probably all as guilty as hell of blowing up or interfering with your buddies, the loyal soliders of the fatherland and defenders of freedom. For every roadside bomb or round fired at your boys you should execute 1 in every 10 people in the immediate vicinity of the perp, they must have seen him at his evil work and been complicit in his activities and this will teach them a lesson.
No one who is capable of hating you so much as to shoot at you when all you're trying to do is liberate them can be properly human, they're monsters and don't deserve the rights your brave boys do so pull them in for questioning, if they won't talk just torture them, run them over in your jeep - a broken leg doesn't matter to these dogs.
Sometimes whole areas might becoming inflamed with unreasoning hatred and rebel against your loving rule. In these situations simply call in air strikes and bomb them from afar, who cares how many of their children die in the inferno, one less suicide bomber of the future !
The great thing is you can do what you like, kill, maim, slaughter, torture, interrogate, confiscate, curfew because at the end of the day they deserve it. They hate you and they deserve it and it's not your fault because if they didn't hate you you wouldn't have to take these steps. You may be tough but you are fair and your conciense is clear.
War has always been nasty horrible and messy for those involved in the fighting but what's really missing is a facility for making it nasty, painful and horrible for those who decide having a war is a good idea but don't do any of the fighting.
Duh ! Because clearly we didn't have anything like the exciting array of weaponary we have today back then. Sure clubbing them to death was satisfactory but we've been waiting 40,000 years for the opportunity to napalm those suckers and boy I can't wait to get started. The tale of when those neandertals killed my great... lots... great uncle when he just stepped out from the cave for more wood is still told in my family and boy does it get me wound up.
Not with warships though, I doubt huge frigates, destroyers or battle ships are going to do that much to prevent small speedboats dashing about on their piratical business. Obviously if the pirates are stupid enough to run slap bang into the path of any of the above then they're in trouble but I can't imagine they're that hard to avoid.
I guess what you need are many more boats and helicopters to keep large areas under surveillance and with enough strike power to check out suspect craft almost immediately but I think this would be an extremely expensive and logistically complicated operation during which most sensible pirates would sit at home enjoying their lives of luxury until the clampdown let up again and they could get back to business.
So long as Somalia is lawless and people there are being given huge sums of money to spend on arms and technology you're always going to have problems with pirates.
Why should NATO act ? How many of those hijacked vessels are registered in NATO countries ? I'm betting it's not many so why would we care if they're hijacked or not.
It's down to countries like Saudia Arabia who are making vast sums of money transporting oil through that area to spend some of that money on their own protection, if they want to protect their ships. At the moment it looks like they prefer to pay out ransoms ( which seems to me to be a highly stupid strategy and is simply providing the pirates with better weapons to capture bigger ships ) but if that's what they want to do it's up to them.
If our own ships are affected we should take a leaf out the Frenchies book and send in aquatic special forces to eliminate the pirates but whilst it's not our ships we don't have to do anything.
I'm not sure how well you understand European history. Countries such as France, The UK, Germany, Spain and most others you see today haven't always been single entities and almost all European countries are an amalgamation of smaller countries/states who have been forced one way or another to get together for the greater good in exactly the same way the US has.
For example the Union Jack is an amalgamation of elements from the English, Scottish, Welsh & Irish flags representing the participation of each country in the UK.
Condsider yourself signed up. You sound like exactly the sort of rational and sane person we'd like to send. A lot of applicants seem to suffer from paranoid meglomania but, hurrah !. You show none of the early signs so welcome to Mars young man and your new life.
You're still not seeing it from a Russian point of view. How do you suppose the US would like it if Russia started to build missile bases in Canada and Mexico ?
I guess you'd probably say something like
Yeah, like the Russians are really just building a 'defense shield'. Even they admit it won't be able to take out all our nukes so what is it really for ? All I know is they're building missile bases on my goddammned border and I don't like that buddy, I don't like it one bit.
This sort of national irresponsibility needs to stop, right now.
I realise these events happened a little while ago now but nonetheless just what the hell did the USA think it was doing flying nuclear bombs around outside their own borders in the first place, this was, it can now be seen, a completely indefensible and irrepsonsible course of action and one for which the USA should now make a full apology.
The best course of action now is for the USA to hand over full documentation of the accident to a responsible and trustworthy country, France for example, and let them conduct an investigation to first of all try and find this nuclear timebomb and second of all to assign blame and set up the process for trying those who are guilty and punishing them appropriately.
Now the USA is at least out of the hands of the mad cowboy and we've good reason to hope Obamas administration will behave far more honourably we can hope their will be no repeats of this disaster but nonetheless until we in the rest of the civilised world can be sure of that the EU should impose regular nuclear inspections on the USA just to double check the same terrible mistakes are not being made today.
Your point of view is that everyone worse off than yourself is an undeserving scrounger and would not use your money in a manner which you see fit, so therefore you're not going to give it them. A Christian approach is not to prejudge people in this manner and give the money freely, surely some people may misuse it but this will be insignificant when set against the good it will do.
What is being suggested is that the rich man should spend his money on giving the entire future generation the best education not possible, not just his own child. This is whats best for society and as someone who has benefitted from society and done well for himself it is incumbent on the rich man to do his best to improve society.
Every child should have equal rights but whilst some people are able to take away those rights by using their wealth that wealth should be redistributed to ensure they are not putting their own children at an unfair advantage.
They teach that poor people weren't pious or good enough, because obviously if they were, God would have provided for them.
-- Care to cite this? I'm extremely skeptical of this.
Oh yes, there are thousands of examples. Taking just one there is a church somewhere in London which was built right in the middle of a dirt poor slum. The church builders were very proud of their enormous and well appointed church because they said it would help them spread the Word Of The Lord amongst the poor folk, and that this would be of far more help than spending the enormous sums of money they spent on the church on things like basic sanitation or anything which might actually practically help their 'flock'.
The thinking here is clearly "The poor people don't deserve our money because they're all workshy, thieving, scum but if we instead spend it on a gigantic and expensive church maybe they will accept God and then pay us our 10% of whatever money they do happen to scrape together. Yes, the may be worse off - but they deserve it and will burn in hell for their sins, but at least we might 'save' some of them. Like all Christians & Catholics these church builders were a bunch of self serving hypocrites.
Well listen up, Einstein, if you don't think it matters what potential presidents or vice presidents actually think, if you think their personal opinions have no bearing on their actions in office then what do you think the last 18 months have been for ? Why bother choosing a candidate to vote for, why not just choose one at random ?
Slashdot Mirror
Whats worse ( or at least equally as bad ) is that these rules also apparently apply to children and babies. There have been numerous stories about families having their passports denied because their toddlers are illegally smiling in their photos.
The whole thing is ridiculous.
Let's face it though there is just no telling what these druggists are capable of, most of the time they don't even know what they're doing or how crazy they're acting. Now you daughter might not spend much time in the druggists ghetto but you can bet they're all busy murdering, raping and robbing each other the whole time down there and your daughter would suffer the same fate were she to cross paths with a druggist desparate to score his next fix.
Druggism is clearly a massive problem for the US but whilst it's still confined to a few hellish druggist ghettos in most cities and doesn't really have much of an impact on regular god fearing folk well then I think prohibition is the wise course. Hell, the last thing I'd want was my daughter being able to try whack herself, getting addicted and ending up selling herself in the ghetto. The church already ventures into those areas and helps those who do want to be saved and that is about as much as any man can do.
This is the Jackie Smith who is also too scared to walk around her own consituency without a bullet proof jacket on, even when she has a police escort !
It looks like she's basically planning on ignoring this ruling anyway, things will stay as they are she says, until she has considered her options.
I thought Blunkett and his crazy ID scheme were bad but this woman really does take the biscuit, she is immune to debate and is quite clearly going to carry on doing exactly whatever she likes until someone stops her.
It's because one of the first things the Labour government did in power was sign up to the EU Human Rights charter which has, amusingly, caused them and their control freak legislation no end of trouble ever since.
I'd say it most definitely was dangerous driving, people on mobiles don't just randomly speed up and slow down they also tend to drift between lanes and generally behave unpredictably which is problem when most drivers base a lot of their decisions on what they think other cars might be doing rather than what they are actually doing.
Presumably though there are already buses in London, I live in Birmingham and although there is no congestion charge for going into the city centre here there are hundreds upon hundreds of buses. There are in fact so many buses that during peak hours and on Saturdays there is an enormous virtually stationary queue of buses slowly crawling through the city centre and this is a huge problem both practically from a "I want to get out of town and home now" point of view and no doubt an environmental one as the stop start driving can hardly be eco friendly.
If there is really such a huge capacity for increasing the number of buses in London then the congestion charge would certainly be a great thing but I suspect this is not the case and that simply adding more buses without widening or improving the roads is not going to speed up anyones journey time. The solution isn't to simply swap buses for cars but to actually spend lots of money on building more tubes or changing the layout of city centres to make transport within them more efficient, unless the congestion charge is raising money to do this I still can't see how it's helping anyone.
There's no doubt efficient transportation is necessary in general not just for large events but I'm not clear on what that has to do with the congestion charge.
Not being a Londoner I don't know the ins and outs of the scheme but unless all the money gained in revenue is being spent on more tube lines or wider roads and not on merely running the congestion charge scheme I can't see how it will deliver more efficient transportation.
You don't want that stuff happening full stop.
A lot of garages now have glass walls so you can sit in the waiting area sipping your coffee and watching the mechanics work on your vehicle. I'll bet the mechanics weren't exactly happy with this situation but if you are transparently doing your work properly it's a far more effective way of impressing customers than not showing them exactly what you are doing in case it goes wrong.
I'm not sure 'insurgents' is the right word here, it sounds as though you meant to say "the subjugated population of the defeated enemy whos country you have invaded".
By all means invade somewhere and treat everyone as your enemy but why stop at just suspecting them of hating you, they probably do and they're probably all as guilty as hell of blowing up or interfering with your buddies, the loyal soliders of the fatherland and defenders of freedom. For every roadside bomb or round fired at your boys you should execute 1 in every 10 people in the immediate vicinity of the perp, they must have seen him at his evil work and been complicit in his activities and this will teach them a lesson.
No one who is capable of hating you so much as to shoot at you when all you're trying to do is liberate them can be properly human, they're monsters and don't deserve the rights your brave boys do so pull them in for questioning, if they won't talk just torture them, run them over in your jeep - a broken leg doesn't matter to these dogs.
Sometimes whole areas might becoming inflamed with unreasoning hatred and rebel against your loving rule. In these situations simply call in air strikes and bomb them from afar, who cares how many of their children die in the inferno, one less suicide bomber of the future !
The great thing is you can do what you like, kill, maim, slaughter, torture, interrogate, confiscate, curfew because at the end of the day they deserve it. They hate you and they deserve it and it's not your fault because if they didn't hate you you wouldn't have to take these steps. You may be tough but you are fair and your conciense is clear.
War has always been nasty horrible and messy for those involved in the fighting but what's really missing is a facility for making it nasty, painful and horrible for those who decide having a war is a good idea but don't do any of the fighting.
Duh ! Because clearly we didn't have anything like the exciting array of weaponary we have today back then. Sure clubbing them to death was satisfactory but we've been waiting 40,000 years for the opportunity to napalm those suckers and boy I can't wait to get started. The tale of when those neandertals killed my great ... lots ... great uncle when he just stepped out from the cave for more wood is still told in my family and boy does it get me wound up.
Not with warships though, I doubt huge frigates, destroyers or battle ships are going to do that much to prevent small speedboats dashing about on their piratical business. Obviously if the pirates are stupid enough to run slap bang into the path of any of the above then they're in trouble but I can't imagine they're that hard to avoid.
I guess what you need are many more boats and helicopters to keep large areas under surveillance and with enough strike power to check out suspect craft almost immediately but I think this would be an extremely expensive and logistically complicated operation during which most sensible pirates would sit at home enjoying their lives of luxury until the clampdown let up again and they could get back to business.
So long as Somalia is lawless and people there are being given huge sums of money to spend on arms and technology you're always going to have problems with pirates.
Why should NATO act ? How many of those hijacked vessels are registered in NATO countries ? I'm betting it's not many so why would we care if they're hijacked or not.
It's down to countries like Saudia Arabia who are making vast sums of money transporting oil through that area to spend some of that money on their own protection, if they want to protect their ships. At the moment it looks like they prefer to pay out ransoms ( which seems to me to be a highly stupid strategy and is simply providing the pirates with better weapons to capture bigger ships ) but if that's what they want to do it's up to them.
If our own ships are affected we should take a leaf out the Frenchies book and send in aquatic special forces to eliminate the pirates but whilst it's not our ships we don't have to do anything.
I'm not sure how well you understand European history. Countries such as France, The UK, Germany, Spain and most others you see today haven't always been single entities and almost all European countries are an amalgamation of smaller countries/states who have been forced one way or another to get together for the greater good in exactly the same way the US has.
For example the Union Jack is an amalgamation of elements from the English, Scottish, Welsh & Irish flags representing the participation of each country in the UK.
Seriously ... you couldn't have just ditched it and got yourself another one ?
Condsider yourself signed up. You sound like exactly the sort of rational and sane person we'd like to send. A lot of applicants seem to suffer from paranoid meglomania but, hurrah !. You show none of the early signs so welcome to Mars young man and your new life.
Well thats a relief, it would be simply too awful to be French and not have a sense of humour.
Where are they now ? The Little People of stone 'enge and what would they say to us if they were here, tonight ?
You're still not seeing it from a Russian point of view. How do you suppose the US would like it if Russia started to build missile bases in Canada and Mexico ?
I guess you'd probably say something like
This sort of national irresponsibility needs to stop, right now.
I realise these events happened a little while ago now but nonetheless just what the hell did the USA think it was doing flying nuclear bombs around outside their own borders in the first place, this was, it can now be seen, a completely indefensible and irrepsonsible course of action and one for which the USA should now make a full apology.
The best course of action now is for the USA to hand over full documentation of the accident to a responsible and trustworthy country, France for example, and let them conduct an investigation to first of all try and find this nuclear timebomb and second of all to assign blame and set up the process for trying those who are guilty and punishing them appropriately.
Now the USA is at least out of the hands of the mad cowboy and we've good reason to hope Obamas administration will behave far more honourably we can hope their will be no repeats of this disaster but nonetheless until we in the rest of the civilised world can be sure of that the EU should impose regular nuclear inspections on the USA just to double check the same terrible mistakes are not being made today.
Eh ? You pay to receive text messages ? What kind of network is that, do you have to pay to send them as well ?
It doesn't fit at all with what you've said.
Your point of view is that everyone worse off than yourself is an undeserving scrounger and would not use your money in a manner which you see fit, so therefore you're not going to give it them. A Christian approach is not to prejudge people in this manner and give the money freely, surely some people may misuse it but this will be insignificant when set against the good it will do.
He's not contradicting himself at all.
What is being suggested is that the rich man should spend his money on giving the entire future generation the best education not possible, not just his own child. This is whats best for society and as someone who has benefitted from society and done well for himself it is incumbent on the rich man to do his best to improve society.
Every child should have equal rights but whilst some people are able to take away those rights by using their wealth that wealth should be redistributed to ensure they are not putting their own children at an unfair advantage.
Oh yes, there are thousands of examples. Taking just one there is a church somewhere in London which was built right in the middle of a dirt poor slum. The church builders were very proud of their enormous and well appointed church because they said it would help them spread the Word Of The Lord amongst the poor folk, and that this would be of far more help than spending the enormous sums of money they spent on the church on things like basic sanitation or anything which might actually practically help their 'flock'.
The thinking here is clearly "The poor people don't deserve our money because they're all workshy, thieving, scum but if we instead spend it on a gigantic and expensive church maybe they will accept God and then pay us our 10% of whatever money they do happen to scrape together. Yes, the may be worse off - but they deserve it and will burn in hell for their sins, but at least we might 'save' some of them. Like all Christians & Catholics these church builders were a bunch of self serving hypocrites.
Well listen up, Einstein, if you don't think it matters what potential presidents or vice presidents actually think, if you think their personal opinions have no bearing on their actions in office then what do you think the last 18 months have been for ? Why bother choosing a candidate to vote for, why not just choose one at random ?