crozby
-
Content
729 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by crozby
-
You honestly can't see the difference between a kid with a gun in a school year book and a guy holding a gun in a history book? How about the difference between the picture of a pair of tits in a biology text book and a pair of tits in a porn mag. Are they the same too? It's all about context. Can you imagine the moral outcry if there was a gun massace at a school and it subsequently turned out there were kids with guns in the year book? The school would have to be run by fucking morons to let that happen.
-
Of course not, i was just curious because its taught in private schools in the UK. I'm just suggesting that the school has made this decision for PR reasons. If a whole load of guys from the school handed in photo's of them all wearing dresses that'd get banned too. Not because there's anything illegal about it, but just because it's not the message the school wants to send out.
-
I'm from the UK which is why I'm only asking questions, but I imagine they feel that some parents wouldn't be overly comfortable sending their kid to a school that has gun toting kids featured in its year book. If the school had a ban on tennis rackets in place I don't suppose it would want those in its year book either. Do schools in the US operate gun clubs or engage in shooting as a competitive sport?
-
Do you suppose the school would have accepted his picture if it showed him holding up a couple of legally purchased porno DVDs? Maybe the school is only protecting its image. Maybe there are a whole load of legal items that they wouldn't want associated with their school.
-
Another take on it, not quite as right-wing and indignant as Fox: http://www.stdbonline.com/index.cfm?action=news.issues.article&id=wed/av/Ucanada-draftdodgers.RRTA_ES8.html
-
I was wondering if there is a correlation between adrenaline junkies and bad spellers because the spelling on this site is some of the worst i've ever come accross.
-
Wow! Its also recently been revealed that Afghanistan is now supplying the world with more Heroin than it was when the Taleban was in charge. Nation building ROCKS!
-
NO NO NO!!! That completely fucks up the 'we gave them 12 years' argument, so leave it alone.
-
Good idea. BBC Newsnight last night indicated that customers saving with this bank would get a significantly higher amount of interest on their money than with the traditional UK banks. If they operate in the same way with mortgages then I'm going to switch mine. Assuming I don't have to become a muslim to use the bank.
-
So in your view, even though the pressure in 2002 was significantly higher than during the previous 12 years, he would not have done it just because he had not done it in the previous 12 years. And you honestly believe it wasn't worth giving it the extra two months to see if that was the case? Even with hindsight?
-
Yeah, so on top of all those 12 years what would a couple of extra months have mattered? Afterall, its people's lives we were talking about.
-
Is Gov. Blagojevich responsible for this man's shooting death?
crozby replied to peacefuljeffrey's topic in Speakers Corner
Possibly, but in PJs vision of the world, everyone else present would have whipped out their weapons and the gunman would have been toast. Plus the gunman wouldn't have attempted it in the first place knowing that everyone else was armed. -
Several significant British politicians resigned over this issue and have stated that this is the case. The idea of climbing inside Bush's head is cool though - I wonder who else I'd find in there.
-
Bush had already decided to go to war. He was deaf to anything the Iraqis said. They produced thousands of pages of documents on the subject. They eventually got so desperate to avoid war they offered increasing cooperation with the UN inspectors. But none of it was enough and it never was going to be. I'm not a liberal. It wasn't in Bush's interests to give the UN weapons more time. His invasion timetable would get messed up by doing that. His public reason for not giving them more time was that they had not found anything so far, (and of course the damn WMD were there!?!) so they were not working out and there was no point in keeping them there. The invasion was done on the pretext of danger from WMD, then on saving the Iraqi people from Saddams brutality. Neither of those reasons are the true primary reason.
-
From the news article: It isn't. Thats what the UN weapons inspectors were for. The US chose to interpret their lack of findings as a failure on their part. According to the US Weapons Inspectors sent in to replace them there weren't any WMD. Yes. Bush was going in whatever the UN or security council decided. Blair had to make a political decision knowing this. Did he stand with Bush, or stand with Europe knowing that Bush would go in anyway. He chose the cowardly, and as it turns out, wrong option.
-
Bullshit. Nobody FORCED the US to invade Iraq, the US, CHOSE to invade Iraq. The Iraqis told you guys time and time again that they didn't have WMD. But your government CHOSE not to believe them because they wanted regime change. And now, after 1,000 US deaths, more than 10,000 US casualties & 10,000+ Iraqi deaths, all totals increasing daily, with no end to the chaos in sight, your government acknowledges that, DUH!, they didn't have any after all. What a total fuckup.
-
Margaret Thatcher? The Falklands? Ring any bells?
-
True, and if the parents don't believe the politicians would have sent their own children in to Iraq, they are bound to feel anger.
-
Protestors Storm U.K. Parliament During Hunt-Ban Debate
crozby replied to peacefuljeffrey's topic in Speakers Corner
ROTFLMTO! Thats had me sniggering all afternoon. -
Protestors Storm U.K. Parliament During Hunt-Ban Debate
crozby replied to peacefuljeffrey's topic in Speakers Corner
I see, so doing anything other than bombing the shit out of a nation is kissing arse is it? No fucking wonder US foreign policy is such a total mess if thats the prevailing attitude. You phrase that like its a bad thing. I couldn't give a toss that the UK is no longer an empire. Empires become empires by shitting on other nations. Empires fade away and leave chaose behind them. How does your nation being an empire affect you personally? What benefits does it give you that someone in say Finland doesn't have? How much per-capita are they spending on security? How much are you? How many of them have died because of thier governments actions? How many of you? Not that tired "Terrorists are all unpredictable madmen" line again. Since when did ignorance of your enemy become a clever thing? -
From the BBC: US report predicts gloom in Iraq The best Iraqis can hope for is tenuous stability, the report says US officials have acknowledged the existence of a secret intelligence report on Iraq offering gloomy predictions for the country's future. The report - a compilation of assessments by intelligence agencies - puts forward three possible scenarios in Iraq by the end of 2005. They range from what the report calls tenuous stability to political fragmentation and civil war. It was prepared for President Bush before a recent escalation of violence. The BBC's Nick Childs at the Pentagon says the report is at odds with the more upbeat public statements which continue to emerge from the Bush administration. Many analysts in Washington are now raising doubts about whether it is realistic to plan for an election in Iraq in January, our correspondent says. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3664136.stm
-
To be honest, I wasn't thinking that far back, but you're right. The defence at the time was that the end justified the means. I'm sure Churchill & co. believed that they had God on their side yet they were blatantly breaking a straight forward rule, as others have done many times since. If Christians can justify the Crusades, the Inquisition, the extermination of the Jews, the burning of Coventry and Dresden, Hiroshima, Vietnam & Iraq, then it seems there is very little that can't be deemed as OK in the eyes of God. I'm not sure I understand how executing murderers is ok either when locking them up would be self-defence enough.
-
I scanned it, and it doesn't condone carpet bombing, cluster bombing, or any other kind of civilian casualty inducing behaviour that Christian nations regularly participate in. Also, its quoting people, not God. God just said "Thou shalt not kill/murder" which is free from all the if's and but's which men seem to have subsequently appened which make the rule so much more flexible as to be nothing like the original statement.
-
Wars basically, where civilians end up dying due to the carelessness of military forces.
-
If that was the intended meaning I'd have thought that the current set of Bible translations would state that wouldn't they? Its pretty fundamental afterall and if a short bit of text like that has been mis-translated then how on earth can the translations of all the other thousands of sentences be relied on? Also, Christians regularly kill people in war situations when it cannot be put down to self defence.