Kiame

Haha - I love hearing self righteous leftists get hold of a new piece of possible legislation. They all sit around like parrots and gurgle out exactly what they've been told and heard from their fellow leftists and stamp down on any differing opinion like a bunch of... stampy stampy elephants. These are the facts: There might be a new piece of legislation coming through in the USA which would allow the US government and federal policing services to, under suspicion of a threat to national security, hold an individual without trial for indefinite amounts of time in an attempt to prevent said threats of national security from being carried out whilst legal processes try to catch up to speed. This is the headline this person has gone with: Americans have lost the right to a fair trial. Sensationalism much? I can't help but feel that little sentence leaves out quite a lot of detail and makes things seem a little bit scarier than they really are. This is what annoys me about so many liberals I know. They hear of a piece of legislation that if enacted would only be a disadvantage to people suspected of terrorism and they turn it around so it seems like all Americans will be thrown straight in prison without trial for the next one hundred years. Also, you have to love the fact that this has been going on for years and years with non-US detainees but now it looks like it could happen to US citizens everyone starts a huge riot. At least John McCain is in favour of treating everyone equally! :P Think for yourselves people. It's all good having differing opinions and there is certainly more than one side of the coin to consider here - but stooping as low as sensationalism to rally fear and rally support behind you is pretty shitty. No matter who or what you think you are trying to protect. edit: I'm not in favour of this bill by the way. I'm just trying to protect information without it being turned into a weapon to slam the other side of the fence.

Get out, and get out fast. The European Union is a bloated, corrupt shell of a "government". The majority of these bastards aren't elected, aren't known and still insist on making decisions that effect everyone. I am disgusted in my country and I am disgusted in the Union. The right to decide how we are governed is a fundamental right, and without it democracy doesn't exist.

I'm not going to respond to the bulk of what you've said because you've managed to misinterpret nearly everything I've said. But I will ask you to stop assuming I'm a huge Obama fan. I'm not at all and never have been. I dislike his politics immensely.

If you accidentally killed your friend with a lethal combinations of drugs when you honestly thought you were helping them - would you still think four years is too little? Or do you only think this because it was Michael Jackson who died? I'm curious.

Yes, he did. Also, can you stop acting like the USA have aggravated or have even done anything remotely akin to expansionism in Libya? You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Just so you know - Libya was a UN mission. The USA played a backseat role. France and several other nations did far more than they did. The US simply worked in a UN mission. Like they normally do. Uh, yes there is actually. It's called the CCA and the hundreds of other branching organisations that make profit from it. You obviously don't know about it, so I'll fill you in. The CCA and their partners are responsible for the wholesale privatization of the US prison system. Literally every prisoner they get makes them money, which in turn makes the US government billions of dollars. The CCA lobby for political candidates in the USA, and have spent over 2,000,000 US dollars doing so. They virtually put cash straight into the White House's pocket. In a report the CCA published to the US government this year, it said this: .... For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them So yeah, it's either drop the war on drugs or cost your countries trillions of dollars in reworking the entire prison system after the CCA cleans you out for all your worth. And you think this is a real choice Obama has to make? And you also think that pissing off one of the most powerful corporations with millions of sectors and sibling corporations wouldn't do anything? You can't see how the democrats wouldn't be fucked for the next ten years because of that? Can you really not see that? You still wanna act like this is all just some "choice" where he can either do one thing or the other? If so, I'm not interested in talking to you. If you are still claiming that Obama can just roll in and say "STOP TEH WAR ON DR_GZ" and everything will be fine then you're being willfully ignorant. You're objectively wrong. This has nothing to do with opinion. It's about influence and hard cold cash. There is nothing keeping him from doing that? Sure, I guess you're right if you see a few trillion dollars and the entire countries law enforcement system as "nothing". Dunce. Err yes, yes, of course she thinks that. 100% she thinks that. There is not one part of my mind that doubts for a second that she thinks that. Especially when it would also result in her party never holding office for ten years and especially when it would result in Tony Abbott coming into power and undoing the law straight off the bat. So yeah, of course she thinks that. You're arguing from an objectively wrong position here buddy. Julia Gillard, before she took office, was a huge human rights activist and lobbied numerous times for greater recognition and rights towards same sex partners when Howard was in power. She gets in power, and changes her tune. Similiar things happened to Obama about foreign policy. And you can't see the pattern here? It is blatantly clear that a lot of the "decisions" leaders of states make aren't "decisions" at all. Obama stopping the war on drugs isn't a 50/50 "decision". You have no idea about the amount of power and the amount of influence that is looking over every decision he makes. If they pull the plug, he drowns. So does the county. These little decisions you view so simply actually carry mammoth amounts of repercussion that you clearly have no understanding of. Politics isn't just about someone making decisions because of their personal feelings. It's also about making sure the financial giants that make sure the gears of your country keep turning are happy. You kick them out, and the WHOLE country suffers. As evil and as twisted as corporations like the CCA or Blackwater are - they are fucking powerful and they control what politicians do. Hell, they finance a lot of their operations.

No, it's not. In theory yes. In actuality, no they don't. The Israel example I used earlier is very poignant here. Obama is powerless to scorn Israel and impose sanctions on them. Absolutely powerless. Israel act like bullies and the USA give them the resources and money to do it. They are a huge trade partner and a strong ally in one of the most anti-US areas on Earth. Israel and the USA HAVE to be friends, and a president trying to break up that agreement would get a thorough talking to and wouldn't hold office for a second longer. Your using opinion here. I'm less likely to take your posts seriously when you use weasel words. Yet you have ignorned the positive political praise Australia has gained from the United Nations and the EU, and the several deals they are in process of making due to the decision. The fact the public didn't want it means nothing. The public didn't want Australia to go into Iraq either - or Afghanistan - and look what happened. There are things at work that matter more. Strengthening relationships with the USA for reasons that don't concern Australia matters more than Australian lives to the government. This is clear. It didn't matter who was in power in 2001 and 2003, Australia was going to war with the USA. Just like they did in the 60s - for an equally as strange reason. A Prime Minister who threatens to break the ANZUS treaty and not follow the USA into a war would be thrown out immediately. No he didn't. The USA was part of a join strike force team commanded by the French and the United Nations that strove to incapacitate Qaddafi's regime. The USA itself did not act independently at all. France played a far greater role. I suggest you read my post again. You're misinterpreted me. I actually mentioned that public opinion means very little most of the time. What matters is the inner workings going on in the pentagon and on wall street. It proves my point that before he was elected, Obama was talking about bringing the troops home in Afghanistan. He gets elected, and sends 15,000 more there almost instantly. And you can't realise what has happened here? It's very clear that countries run themselves and some decisions HAVE to happen. The President's personal view is irrelevant. I'm confident that Obama is against the war. I'm also confident that Gillard is for same sex marriage. Both can't really do much though. Once again, public opinion doesn't mean anything. Because you didn't read my post, I'll just paste what I said here: "First of all, a lot of us need to realise that politics isn't as simple as "this person is in power so they make decisions". Nor is it as simple as "the majority of people want this to happen so it has to happen". Once again, this just makes me not want to discuss with you. Don't put words in my mouth - I never said that. Plenty of heads of state accomplish huge, amazing things. I gave examples of what Gillard has already done. Obama has accomplished some already too. What I said is that there are some things that public opinion and public perception don't matter as much as reality. If Gillard legalises gay marriage, she has to deal with the Australian equivalent of Wall Street campaigning to get her out of parliament. She has to deal with the Australian equivalent of Wall Street pumping millions of dollars into the Liberal Party and a huge smeer campaign that would, without a doubt, ruin Labor's credibility for the next five years. In Australia, with that much pressure from people with that much money, the Governor General can ask the PM to leave. That's what Gillard would be risking. Besides, the Australian people are largely very laid back about the whole thing. They know that not allowing gay marriage for a few more years won't do anything and won't lead to anything so they don't really care.

That's very easy for a lot of people to say - but try to imagine being on the other end of it. Try to imagine being a black man on that train with his young daughter whilst some lady screams incredibly offensive and hateful nonsense at you. There is a point where the law has to intervene to protect the well being of others. The United Kingdom isn't Nazy Germany here - to get arrested for harassment you really have to cross the line. She wasn't merely voicing an opinion here - she was devaluing innocent people. I don't believe people should be free to get on a train stoned and attempt to start fights with everyone on the train and spew hateful nonsense. If she was standing in Hyde Park handing out leaflets and merely expressing opinion - I'd be fine with it. But this crosses a line. Either way, freedom of speech or no freedom of speech - you could get her for disturbing the peace and causing public recklessness.

First of all, a lot of us need to realise that politics isn't as simple as "this person is in power so they make decisions". Nor is it as simple as "the majority of people want this to happen so it has to happen". There is a lot of inner workings and inner conflict that goes on behind the scenes that no one (other than those involved) have really any idea about. In specific regards to Australia - I like Julia Gillard. She's made some progressive changes and I think she's a fantastic person and a great leader. But she's not wonder woman. I would put a million euros on the fact that she, in her person life, is all for same sex marriage and would love to see it happen. But it can't. Why? Well, there is the fact that New South Wales, by far the most influential state in the country, has a huge private economic sector that is almost entirely run by right wing devout Catholics. Gillard can't move on the issue. For many issues, the country run itself. Sure, Gillard is able to do little things here and there. But she lacks the power to change the definition of marriage and she certainly lacks the will. There are people behind her that will not allow it. She's a puppet. I'm not saying that in a bad way - I'm saying that in a realistic way. That's what politics is these days. You can say the same for Obama, by the way. Notice how Obama was Mr Progressive and Mr Change before he was President, but after being elected he seemed far more like Bush than we all thought? Why did that happen? Same reasons. The country runs itself. There are things at stake that are more important that the person views of the face in charge. Just look at how the US are so biased towards Israel. It is clear Obama, like all sane minded people, realises the fact that the Israeli governance is full of evil bastards - but he can't do anything about it because the US needs Israel as an ally in the area. If he where to impose sanctions on Israel and say "stop being douchebags!" he'd be either kicked out of office or be "told" to "retire" before he got the chance. I was lucky enough to live in Australia for two months and for the most part - it's an amazing country. It's that good of a country that it makes France look sub par in nearly every way. However, I couldn't help but notice the lag between the generations that exists there. The youth seem to be quite progressive, yet the baby boomers who represent them are cynical, fun hating bastards. The media was appalling too. There isn't a chance in hell that a show such as A Current Affair would let alone air in France - let alone become one of the most popular programs in the country.

I've done pot and heroin. Apart from alcohol and medicine, they are the only two drugs I've ever done. I haven't done an illicit drug since heroin in 2007.

No it's not true. I haven't seen the interview, but are you sure Chris wasn't joking? Chris jokes a lot and a lot of the time people on here don't seem to get it. Like that time he said MX was like 80 minutes long and everyone believed him haha. Anyway, no, not true. It's certainly Chris. Can't tell me otherwise.

Most under rated song? So basically you're asking me what my favourite song is that most people either don't like or haven't really heard of? Well in that case I think Reign of Love is absolutely beautiful.

Well I've just been through a break up so seeing some perfect, amazing, brilliant man all the time just becomes annoying you see.

He just annoys me now.

You think Violet Hill, Lovers in Japan, Cemeteries of London, Reign of Love, etc are all better than Charlie Brown and Hurts Like Heaven? Wut.

1: Life in Technicolor 2: Hurts like Heaven 3: Both are the weakest songs on the records, but I'll go with Paradise. 4: Violet Hill 5: Viva la Vida 6: ETIAW 7: POC 8: Up in Flames 9: UATW 10: Reign of Love 11: DLIBYH 12: The Escapist 13: DAAHF MX: 7 VLV: 6

I apologise. Declining a debate does not make a man a coward. You are calling a man you do not know a coward over reasons you have no details of. You are merely parroting your opinion off the back of other people calling him a coward. You don't know the ins and outs of a situation. You don't know exactly why Dawkins declined. I highly doubt he declined because he was scared of this man. I think that is a remarkable stretch to make, and is a stretch that disrespects you immensely. You should not call someone a coward over such petty reasons. I suggest you read this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig Hopefully that will shine some light on both sides of the story, and hopefully you will realise exactly what you are defending and exactly what you are attacking here. I personally would not wish to debate with anyone who has said words that sound remarkably like advocating genocide. I also would not wish to debate with anyone who would do something as childish as leave an empty chair in the debate hall with my name on it once I refused.

Let me first of all say that I have met Richard Dawkins and have had the pleasure to discuss with him with a few of my classmates for around an hour. He was incredibly kind and courteous and conducted himself in a way that I have only seen very few people top. Despite talking to someone such as I, who is quite devout, he was incredibly compassionate and curious towards my medical studies, my background and my world view. I like the man a lot. I don't agree with any of what he says about God, but I do respect him. Richard Dawkins is not a coward at all. He is a very smart man. His work with biology is nothing short of amazing, and as a very keen biologist I respect him immensely. He does not have to debate someone if he does not want to. I myself would not debate Richard Dawkins. Why? Because I already know his opinion about God and I already know I don't agree with it. What good would debating do? Does this make me a coward? I assume Mr Dawkins feels the same way. He's debated people for a very long time, and he has recently said he feels no desire to continue to do so. There is only so far you can beat a dead horse. You don't have to act like a dick and call him a coward. That's a mighty claim to call a man who you do not even know and have not connected with. I'll leave this here: First and foremost among these favors, which the almighty hath conferred upon man is the gift of understanding. His purpose in conferring such a gift is none other except to enable His creature to know and recognise the one true God. This gift giveth man the power to discern the truth in all things, leadeth him to that which is right in his heart, and helpeth him to discover the secrets of creation. Mr Dawkins only uses the tools God gave him to analyse and connect with creation. He has made numerous breakthroughs in science and has contributed greatly towards the field of biology. Just because you disagree with his world view does not give you the right to stir up juvenile attacks and to personally insult him. You do no good to your self or your family in doing so.

Dude, look at the lyrics thread in the Charlie Brown section. About twenty of us have been saying this for months and months. Here is a quote from me a month ago: Yeah, it's either that or: "So we soar luminous and wired. We'll be glowing in the dark". To be honest I'm not sure what one it is. Soar makes more sense to me though, I doubt he'd say: "so we're so" Sounds silly.

I hope they don't stream or play all the songs on the EP before we've heard the EP.

I can hear Guy quite clearly on every track except UFO and UIF. Guy's bass in Paradise is my favourite part of the song.

It always baffles me how someone could be so self focused that they still, after many years of living, don't understand the fact that not everyone thinks the same way they do. Most of us learnt this when were three years old. What's your excuse?

Nice costumes Emma and Emma's friend :)

UIF>AHT>DLIBYH>UWTB makes the album

ETIAW

Fighting is normal but don't let it define your relationship with them. It's okay to fight, just as long as at the end of the day you're all still there for each other.