So, today, we have another piece of legislation -- written by the same arch-conservative people -- that seems to support big european businesses, at the expense of the 'consumers' and smaller EU firms.
How does this proposal benefit big businesses at the expense of the consumers?
I think you forget that the £65,000 came from the local goverment's swimming pool budget.. not the hospital budget, not the public transport budget; the swimming pool budget.
By the way, you say the FAA value a life at 2.3m dollars. What do you value your life at?
The link Just a little
Throws up this:
From radical environmental treaties that would eviscerate traditional property rights, to attempts at global gun control, to resolutions aimed at establishing international "gay rights," the United Nations is the hub of an effort to restructure the world in the most radical ways imaginable.
So just because the UN allows a discussion of world leaders on enviornmental treaties, such as Kyoto perhaps, gun control and gay rights, you say they are against freedom? WTF!! Does freedom not give people the right to discuss ideas like this?
I certainly wouldn't like the UN to enforce any treaty which eviscerates traditional property rights but that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't discuss it. And even if there were such a treaty I know my national government wouldn't sign up to it, so its not something I'm going to lie awake at night worrying about. Remember, the UN is a treaty organisation. They can't enforce anything in your country that your government won't sign up to.
Gun control: Considering the US thinks it has the authority to remove Iraq's (imaginary) WMD's why shouldn't the UN have the authority to do so? Why not have treaties against weapon proliferation.. oh hold on, we do. The Landmine Ban Treaty signed by 153 countries, but not the US.
Gay rights: What's wrong with this? Only a fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist Muslim would have issues with this, IMO.
When I follow your more of your links I find journalists opining against nuclear disarment and the cancellation of 3rd World Debt. Again, how do these impinge on people's freedom? Are you saying countries should be "free to be poor" or "free to live under nuclear threat" and that the UN is evil for suggesting that people don't want to be poor, and that rogue states shouldn't have the right to stockpile nuclear arms?
Finally, remember again, the UN is a treaty organisation. They can't enforce anything in your country that your national government doesn't sign up to.
Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.. please explain to me what the UN did that damaged/curbed anyone's freedom?
Have you concrete examples or just opinion?
IMO UN peacekeepers in the Lebanon, East Timor and elsewhere have done a lot to advance freedom in thwe world.
In the UK at least the monarch has almost no power in theory, and less than that in practice. A good point and well expressed. But ceremonially the Queen is still Head of State. The President of Ireland has very little power and yet she is important to us (in Ireland) and turnout for Presidential elections is comparable with any other.
The monarchy serves as a rather effective tourist attraction largely because of strange romantic notions that I for one don't really understand. Over at http://www.republic.org.uk/faqs.htm the point is made that the Palace of Versailles has most visitors than Buckingham Palace and Windsor combined. In my own opinion, I doubt many tourists visit England to see the Queen. And remember, even without a monarch you can still have palaces and even a royal family! Just because you have titles "Queen of England", "Prince of Wales", etc. does not mean the holders of these titles have to be head of state. I know a lot of republicans (in Ireland anyway) abhorr the use of titles, but not all republicans do.
I don't think this is a fake, but it is certainly.. curious!
Beside the "Get Firefox" button some text says "Consider using a web browser other than Microsoft Internet Explorer and you will probably halt most of the bad stuff you could be getting".
True. The CIRA or RIRA could have been responsible. It seems unlikely now, since an Al Qeada group have claimed responsibillity. But it is a possibility.
That last line should say "PS. When I re-read this post I realise that is may come accross as Pro-Sinn Fein, despite the fact that I'm not a Sinn Fein supporter. I've had oppurtunities to vote for them but never have."
Its true that SAS/RUC raids, sometimes with loyalist paramilitary involvement, did devestate IRA resources. This SAS/RUC engagement was very necessary.
But some would say that as the IRA became more unprecictable and Britian spent more money on security it became clear to BOTH sides that military and paramilitary disengagement was the only way forward.
You are saying that with the SAS/RUC/LVF etc. the IRA would not have come to the table. But many in Sinn Fein will argue that without the IRA there would have been no table to come to in the first place!
My own view is that the IRA campaign was, of course, a terrible immoral crime, which did nothing to bring about peace or the possibility of a united Ireland. But that the policies of Margret Thacther, which was to vilify Sinn Fein and ignore the Irish government, only increased the membership of the IRA. Only when John Major began meaningful dialogue with the Irish Government and Sinn Fein, then had the people of Northern Ireland the means to begin shutting down the IRA.
PS. When I re-read this post I realise that is may come accross as Pro-Sinn Fein, despite the fact that a Sinn Fein supporter. I've had oppurtunities to vote for them but never have.
Sadly, Londoners have had much expierence of terrorists attacks over 3 decades, from the IRA.
Thankfully, In recent years a peace process has developed. But what is interesting is that peace was only able to exist when all sides decided to pursue their agendas through political means rather than military (or paramilitary) means.
I guess I'm saying that facing down the IRA with military action didn't achieve much. Talking to them did.
This attack has the hallmarks of an Al Qeada attack, not an IRA one. For one thing, the IRA usually issues a warning along with a known codeword.
This would benefit the IRA how?
Exactly. At the current time this would be of no benefit to the IRA. The IRA are on ceasefire and are contemplating a call by Gerry Adams to move their agenda forward solely by peaceful political means.
So do you reckon if Washington State had made this announcement that MS and others would be saying "Hey, who cares, its just one little State. There's like about 49 others.."
People make mistakes. Does this mean they should be fired?
If they are big mistakes, then yes they absolutly should be fired. Thats the way it works in most companies. If the share price goes down 2 quarters in a row, the comapany bring in a new CEO.
What is the point of giving politicans responsibility without accoutabilty? What is point of accountability without penalties?
Slashdot Mirror
The worst part of the UK's democratic system is that bills can be vetoed by a bunch of Lords that inherited their position.
How does this proposal benefit big businesses at the expense of the consumers?
Siemens already offer a USB Skype dongle in Europe to communicate with their Gigaset DECT phones.
Battles would be unnecessarily bloodier. And you think this was a good thing? Are you aware of how many people Cromwell needlessly tortured?
I think you forget that the £65,000 came from the local goverment's swimming pool budget.. not the hospital budget, not the public transport budget; the swimming pool budget.
By the way, you say the FAA value a life at 2.3m dollars. What do you value your life at?
From radical environmental treaties that would eviscerate traditional property rights, to attempts at global gun control, to resolutions aimed at establishing international "gay rights," the United Nations is the hub of an effort to restructure the world in the most radical ways imaginable.
So just because the UN allows a discussion of world leaders on enviornmental treaties, such as Kyoto perhaps, gun control and gay rights, you say they are against freedom? WTF!! Does freedom not give people the right to discuss ideas like this?
I certainly wouldn't like the UN to enforce any treaty which eviscerates traditional property rights but that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't discuss it. And even if there were such a treaty I know my national government wouldn't sign up to it, so its not something I'm going to lie awake at night worrying about. Remember, the UN is a treaty organisation. They can't enforce anything in your country that your government won't sign up to.
Gun control: Considering the US thinks it has the authority to remove Iraq's (imaginary) WMD's why shouldn't the UN have the authority to do so? Why not have treaties against weapon proliferation.. oh hold on, we do. The Landmine Ban Treaty signed by 153 countries, but not the US.
Gay rights: What's wrong with this? Only a fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist Muslim would have issues with this, IMO.
When I follow your more of your links I find journalists opining against nuclear disarment and the cancellation of 3rd World Debt. Again, how do these impinge on people's freedom? Are you saying countries should be "free to be poor" or "free to live under nuclear threat" and that the UN is evil for suggesting that people don't want to be poor, and that rogue states shouldn't have the right to stockpile nuclear arms?
Finally, remember again, the UN is a treaty organisation. They can't enforce anything in your country that your national government doesn't sign up to.
Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.. please explain to me what the UN did that damaged/curbed anyone's freedom? Have you concrete examples or just opinion? IMO UN peacekeepers in the Lebanon, East Timor and elsewhere have done a lot to advance freedom in thwe world.
A good point and well expressed. But ceremonially the Queen is still Head of State. The President of Ireland has very little power and yet she is important to us (in Ireland) and turnout for Presidential elections is comparable with any other.
The monarchy serves as a rather effective tourist attraction largely because of strange romantic notions that I for one don't really understand.
Over at http://www.republic.org.uk/faqs.htm the point is made that the Palace of Versailles has most visitors than Buckingham Palace and Windsor combined. In my own opinion, I doubt many tourists visit England to see the Queen. And remember, even without a monarch you can still have palaces and even a royal family! Just because you have titles "Queen of England", "Prince of Wales", etc. does not mean the holders of these titles have to be head of state.
I know a lot of republicans (in Ireland anyway) abhorr the use of titles, but not all republicans do.
It's not too easy to determine the amount of public money actually spent on the monarchy.2 47033,00.html
This is true. But the Guardian claimed that it cost about £36.8m in 2003 to keep the Queen. http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1
Maybe it is only important to me because I live in a country where people fought (against Britain and again in a civil war) to have a republic.
But probably it is just because a republic seems like very a logical arrangement to me, where as monarchs seem quite antiquated.
Check out http://www.republic.org.uk/ : The campaign for an elected head of state in (what is for now) the UK.
Actually, I correct myself. Its one of the "Crystal" themes on Firefox.
I thought they were like the Phoenity theme in Firefox, but you're right, its Crystal.
Internet Explorer seem to be using the Firefox "Phoenity" theme, for the Back and Forward buttons.
I don't think this is a fake, but it is certainly .. curious!
Beside the "Get Firefox" button some text says "Consider using a web browser other than Microsoft Internet Explorer and you will probably halt most of the bad stuff you could be getting".
True. The CIRA or RIRA could have been responsible. It seems unlikely now, since an Al Qeada group have claimed responsibillity. But it is a possibility.
That last line should say "PS. When I re-read this post I realise that is may come accross as Pro-Sinn Fein, despite the fact that I'm not a Sinn Fein supporter. I've had oppurtunities to vote for them but never have."
But some would say that as the IRA became more unprecictable and Britian spent more money on security it became clear to BOTH sides that military and paramilitary disengagement was the only way forward.
You are saying that with the SAS/RUC/LVF etc. the IRA would not have come to the table. But many in Sinn Fein will argue that without the IRA there would have been no table to come to in the first place!
My own view is that the IRA campaign was, of course, a terrible immoral crime, which did nothing to bring about peace or the possibility of a united Ireland. But that the policies of Margret Thacther, which was to vilify Sinn Fein and ignore the Irish government, only increased the membership of the IRA. Only when John Major began meaningful dialogue with the Irish Government and Sinn Fein, then had the people of Northern Ireland the means to begin shutting down the IRA.
PS. When I re-read this post I realise that is may come accross as Pro-Sinn Fein, despite the fact that a Sinn Fein supporter. I've had oppurtunities to vote for them but never have.
Mod parent up.
Sadly, Londoners have had much expierence of terrorists attacks over 3 decades, from the IRA. Thankfully, In recent years a peace process has developed. But what is interesting is that peace was only able to exist when all sides decided to pursue their agendas through political means rather than military (or paramilitary) means.
I guess I'm saying that facing down the IRA with military action didn't achieve much. Talking to them did.
This attack has the hallmarks of an Al Qeada attack, not an IRA one. For one thing, the IRA usually issues a warning along with a known codeword.
This would benefit the IRA how?
Exactly. At the current time this would be of no benefit to the IRA. The IRA are on ceasefire and are contemplating a call by Gerry Adams to move their agenda forward solely by peaceful political means.
So do you reckon if Washington State had made this announcement that MS and others would be saying "Hey, who cares, its just one little State. There's like about 49 others.."
I don't come all the way into the office just to do WORK!
Me and everybody else in my office thinks its fun!
If they are big mistakes, then yes they absolutly should be fired. Thats the way it works in most companies. If the share price goes down 2 quarters in a row, the comapany bring in a new CEO.
What is the point of giving politicans responsibility without accoutabilty? What is point of accountability without penalties?
What is new in this that isn't achieved by OASIS?