Kiame

Your points were incredibly hollow and average about six words long. Yes, I can. The thing is it's really not worth the time. Especially when it's you I'm replying to. I've never called you anything remotely as insane as what you just called me.

Я предпочитаю насилия, товарищ. Я также хотел войны. :)

.

hahahahahahahaa I am never taking you seriously again. War mongering? Really? Hhahahahahah.\ Because I think piracy and smuggling are bad and you disagree with me, that makes me a war mongering socialist who loves corporations? Hahahaha. Oh, and I hate self determination? Just the other week I made this post in regard to the EU: I really MUST hate self determination. lolque. Nice talking with you. I'm off to start a war somewhere and be a socialist who is also a corporatist because that totally makes sense. Seya! hahahahhahahaaha. Woah Chuck! You are in favour of government? Then you are automatically wrong. You are a war mongering socialist corporatist who loves to attack peaceful people.... :P Better get out of this thread before the resident lunatic finds out.

The....lack....of......understanding...is.......so.....frustrating... There are literally thousands of examples I can use to cripple your argument here, but I'm going to use Zombieland. If you aren't familiar with the film, here is the link: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/zombieland/ At first glance of Zombieland's figures, it did really well. It more than tripled its production budget and the creators were all set to make a sequel and to further the series. Until they hit a road block. Zombieland was the most pirated film on the internet for about six months straight. It turns out, for a sequel to be granted, the publisher (Sony) wanted the film to make at least 100 million. It made about 90. Zombieland would have quite easily flown past the 100 million mark if it were not for piracy. If even one half of the downloaders would have instead saw the movie in theaters or purchased it, Zombieland's profit would have been near 250 million. And that's only with one half. So let's fast forward to the end of 2011 and Zombieland 2 still isn't a guarantee to be made. So piracy has robbed a company of up to 300 million dollars in profit - that should have been rightfully theirs. You can spin it either way, but piracy loses corporations millions of dollars a year. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can say piracy is totally fine. Imagine if you were writing a novel for six years. Then I walked into your office, photocopied it and gave it away to everyone who was interested in it. Then you release it, and the book makes only a quarter of the amount of money it was expected to make. So you've only just cracked profit and the book turns out to be a huge financial waste of time. Your publisher dumps you and you end up virtually where you started. Then you come up to me and say "Kiame, you photocopied my book before release and gave it out for free! You've cost me a lot of money!". And I reply "Aw shut up. Intellectual property isn't really property. I didn't actually STEAL the book - I just COPIED it". That's what piracy does. To imply that it's not a hurtful crime is incredibly dishonest. The basic concept behind smuggling's illegality is the fact that the government has to protect their own interests and their own developers from outside sources that may be able to undercut them. Which I would hardly call evil. It's simply a form of protection that ensures they can track the goods coming in and out of their country and are able to protect their own manufacturers. A few people on here have expressed annoyance over your ability to try to spin absolutely everything to fit your own view point. I don't know if you have been following the news or not, but it seems the butter shortage has been caused by Tine's ( a private company) stranglehold on the industry. They have created a monopoly. The real problem is that there are pieces of legislation that make it very hard for anyone to compete. So in Norway there is this awkward situation where things are half socialist and half free market. So you're left with a huge company rising to the top and then finding pieces of government legislation to protect them from falling. http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/12/08/calls-rise-to-bust-butter-monopoly/ http://godfatherpolitics.com/2629/norway-has-a-shortage-of-butter/ There you go. Ironically, the Norwegian Government actually saw this coming and attempted to break up Tine in 2004 and encourage Tine to form into several smaller companies to compete with one another to ensure dairy production stays strong. They were denied due to free market rhetoric. Which would have been fine, but there was also huge amounts of socialist rhetoric in the same field. So it's a huge mess. The tricky thing is it that Norway has a socialist endorsed free market. The two don't mix at all - and you get situations like this, where a private company emerges and has a monopoly and no one can do anything. In an ideal free market world this wouldn't happen. In an ideal socialist world this wouldn't happen either. Give us all a break and stop simplifying everything down to fit into your agenda. Every single thread you make is a deliberate attempt to devalue government and glorify your libertarianism. The reality is that all these issues are more complicated than you make them out to be. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong and are therefore in favour of hurting "peaceful" people. It's getting tiresome dude.

the

The people in Norway are still able to buy cream and salt aren't they?

Butter literally takes about 10-15 minutes to make. I can't comprehend how this is even an issue - unless you own a really busy restaurant - but even then there is a way around it and most consumers are fairly understanding when it comes to stuff like this. It's a bit sad that when something as easy to make as butter stops being made by corporations - everyone starts crying and complaining. Make it yourself people! It's not hard, trust me! It's pretty fun too and it tastes a hell of a lot better! And lasts far longer. Peaceful does not imply that someone is without blame. Nor does it imply that someone is innocent. Nor does it rid someone of any responsibility or consequences of their actions. I can do something completely peaceful that infringes upon the rights of others and indirectly hurts others. Piracy and smuggling are great examples. I think that's what The Final Track was talking about.

What is it with some of you guys and trying to wear the same stuff as Chris? Walking around in that jacket would do nothing but make you look pretentious. It's a really cool jacket, don't get me wrong, but it's a costume for a multi million dollar band. Plus, famous rock stars are allowed to wear cool extroverted stuff. You aren't. Now fall in line and conform.

Not at all. The boys sound as inspired and as goal orientated as they ever have been. They've got fire in their stomachs. They aren't just going to stop - Chris jokes about them stopping sure, but he has done that since their second LP.

I assume they are mostly the lyrics to songs that didn't make the cut. However they may also be rough draft lyrics. That last one could have been lyrics to Major Minus that were reworked and scrapped. Lots of songs start out with extra verses and things that sometimes see the rubbish bin.

I'm six and what is this?

I hear his Son is even worse than he is and is far more aggressive and gun-ho.

This is what happens when they outsource labour to India. First the telemarketing companies, now the confetti making people.

If there is all tits and no ass I'm quitting life.

It's about rebellion, youth and feeling alive.

Oh he's serious. And don't call him Shirley!

Why wouldn't you!?!?

Oh sorry, I thought you were the person who decided to sit and study instead of join Kiame on her amazing trip to Vietnam. I must have got you confused with that square.

Not as pretty as you my dear. And you should be jealous, you square. You nerd. You book worm. You... meh.

Won't somebody please think of the children?

Me and my friend on the train to Germany Me and my best German friend in Berlin. The main pictures I took in Vietnam haven't uploaded yet, but here is one I took on my phone during my visit to the Mekong. It was so pretty there!

But making a head line "AMERICANS HAVE LOST THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL" is perfectly honest, isn't it Mr Saffire? That perfectly sums up the bill and what it would do, doesn't it? This bill only deals with threats to national security. The government has been treating "threats to national security" like shit for the last twenty years and so many of you didn't seem to care before. This is mostly a whole heap of bandwagon nonsense. People I don't like gain power all the time. One is in power right now. Also, I don't dislike you. Here is the first mistake you make. You're being ridiculous and you're using the slippery slope fallacy. If this bill is passed it doesn't mean the US will stop thoroughly investigating people and using serious intel to make their decisions. You're acting like they are just going to point to someone on the street and throw them in a crowded dungeon somewhere, like England used to do in the 1700s. Except here's the thing - I would get a trial. If I honestly was just some innocent joe and I was carried off to Guantanamo Bay the media whiplash would be horrendous. It would be an absolute storm of public pressure and the US would lose all credibility and be scorned heavily from the international arena. They'd be the laughing stock of the whole world. Be honest with yourself. This isn't going to happen. You're gravely underestimating the people. It's not that easy to deceive them and these days nothing delights them more than the chance to make a shitstorm against the government. -- The reason I'm against this bill is a more realistic answer and a more genuine one. I don't sit around fear mongering and imply that it's going to affect all AMERICANS. Because I don't believe it will. Not even for a second. I believe only people associated with terrorism and only those who pose a threat to national security will be held. I don't think they are just going to fling some random US citizen into prison on nothing but a whim. I'm against this because I agree with the rule of law. Even if someone is associated with a terror group and even if someone looks like they may be a threat to the USA - they should be detained with charges and should be met with a fair trial. Just because they are "terrorists" (which is an arbitrary, meaningless word a lot of the time) doesn't mean they don't have to go through the same process as murderers and rapists do. However there is an issue here which you haven't addressed. What if there is someone out there - a US citizen who the government has serious intelligence that suggests they are working with Al Qaeda and suggests that they may be committing a terrorist attack in the next 24 hours. But the government don't have enough on them to stick any charges (much like they don't with the majority of gangsters) - so under the rule of law they can not detain them. What do you think should be done then? Do you think we should stick to the rule of law and due processing, or do you think we should bend the rules in the possibility of saving hundreds of thousands of innocent people? See - that's the question the bill is dealing with. It's not whatever the hell it was you were on about earlier. You're acting like it's going to be the fascist police state where all "ENEMIES OF THE STATE!" will be thrown away with the rats and roaches. It's not. It's the attempted answer to a very difficult question. "Are the rights of one man more important than the lives of hundreds?" is what they are getting at here.

I see - then Saffire I apologise. He sounds like most of the stereotypical liberal people I know so I stupidly assumed. But it wasn't solely directed at him.

The chances of Coldplay making an album that is similar to their last one are so slim it's not worth talking about. They are a band that clearly go out of their way to ensure their sound keeps changing and evolving.