Loz

Doubly so, as plums were involved, maxxi.

New Nexus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *Bob* Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > When will the Reichstag burn down again though? In > > between the insurance and pensions timebombs, or > > before both? > > > > Can someone clarify? > > "Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It" That's so true. I had completely forgotten that the Reichstag had burnt down and, waddaya know, last time I was in Berlin I accidentally set fire to it. Personally, I think I was just so, like, doomed to do that.

Is that celebrating the arrival of Mr Godwin, SJ?

Would the bakery be within their rights to erect something on the studs, in order to maintain their tables on their property without pedestrian interference?

Doesn't make it the correct usage of the word, though. Two wrongs, and all that. Anyway, did they use rioting and vandalizing as well? Or are you avoiding that question now?

Yes, it does say ?typically during a war?. It also specifically says 'goods'. Fail. Do you want to try to justify your charges of rioting and vandalizing as well, or are you quietly withdrawing those.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > UK's consitution is pretty well set out actually. > Just not in one place. Arguably this is better > because if someone wants to bugger about with it > they can only change one aspect at a time and not > throw the baby out with the bath water. OK, let me adjust my point... the UK could do with actually writing it's constitution down so that not just a bunch of lawyers understand what it says.

Let me help you, NN. Try again.

My view on that is there is a balance. It's noticeable how many charities are up in arms about government cuts. Why is the government funding charities? The government should fund *services*. Charities - funded by charitable donations - should provide a different set of services. The money I give to charities fund things I think need and want to be funded. My taxes should provide government services to the country. They are not the same thing. It annoys me that the government fund certain charities (the Fawcett Society and other professional lobby groups being top of the list) and I would rather have more control over where my money goes in that regard. I could also argue that government doing it this way lowers the charities efforts in fund raising and, ergo, awareness raising. And, through that, the amount people actually give to charity. And therefore the total amount of money put to both sets of services. Sort of a funding death spiral.

Please go and look up the definition of 'looting' and then explain why it was.

People with lots of (earned) money didn't get where they were without some serious political savvy. What you are seeing is them noticing which way the wind is blowing so they can throw a few sheckles into the pot and then resume normal service. It really won't make a blind bit of difference, except to make them look good and get them some attractive publicity. Warren Buffet is worth (according to Wiki) about ?62bn. If he was to, say, throw half a billion into the pot it would hardly dent his fortune (less than 1%) and do squat all for the US deficit. But wow, look at the publicity. The guy is a genius.

New Nexus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Santerme Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I live four to five months of the year in the > > US....all is well, don't worry so much! > > Patriot Act aka Enabling Act > > You'll be very pleased to know the Daily Mail is in full agreement with you... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392653/Police-officers-body-slammed-dancing-protesters-inside-Jefferson-Memorial-face-investigation.html But it does go to prove that America is slightly nuts. They have a pretty well set out constitution (something the UK could do with), but still manage this sort of stuff.

Oh, so participating in financial transactions with people now gets classed as "rioting, vandalizing and looting"? Hyperbole.

Go out and have a wee or ten in your garden. Foxes don't like it. Use your garden as a toilet so the foxes don't!

The Standard had an article on Olympic lettings in the Homes and Gardens section today. Apologies for lack of detail, but I left my copy on the train.

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do belive that you should pick up your boots traps and earn a living standing on your own to > feet I am sure most of us do this anyway but I also believe in this current climate people who > are losing there jobs to no fault of there own need help when they fall on hard times. I agree entirely. But as far as Thatcher's speech goes, I could see Ed Milliband making a not-too-dissimilar speech. It says a lot that people took one line out of context and then ignored the rest of what she said. Maggie can be criticised for a lot of things, but taking that one line out smacks of widespread opportunism. I mean, when you thin about it, it's really not too far away from "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country", is it?

Oh, come on LD - we all know you secretly admire ol' Maggie!

It has already ... and it is posting on here as New Nexus.

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She [...] said there not such thing as a society That's always been a piece of selective quoting. When you look at it in the context of everything she said in that interview, especially immediately after that portion, it wasn't so bad. In fact, I'd say, given current events, still an arguable position.

MissNoodlesHats Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fact is he was undergoing DV... See - you keep saying that but you just refuse to give a source for it (except that you 'saw it on TV'). As far as I know it is not a fact - only you and the Daily Mail have said it. If you can give me decent source I'd be happy to accept it as 'fact' - until then it is only a allegation on your part. You also said that you knew that this apparent DV had 'just completed financial checks'. Again no source for this... And my knowledge of the vetting process tells me that stages are not reported so I am wondering how you know this. Sources, AFN, sources.

MissNoodlesHats Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >> "you know sod all about the vetting process. They don't report back on each stage, you know. >> Or, as it turns out, you don't know." > Fall of your horse dear, your clueless. Ah, the old mindless Allfornun abuse is back. And you still know nothing about the vetting process. > Not only do I know he was undergoing developed > vetting, Cameron also stated it in response to a > journalist direct question on big ole live TV. Referenced source? I like to check these things myself. You have been known to make things up.

New Nexus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Britain? Empire building? In the middle of the 19th century? You don't say! > > > > But you'd have a harder time convincing me that > > was still the case today. > > Where do you think Wachovia and Wells Fargo & Co (WFC) got the idea to launder $378.4 billion > Mexican drugs money into U.S. to support the economy during the 2008 crisis. > Apples do not fall far from the tree. A vague conspiracy theory about two US companies and Mexico? Aaaand that has got what exactly to with British empire building?

MissNoodlesHats Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hair splitting twaddle, and he was actually being vetted under DV which incidentally had just > completed financial checks when things started to leak like peckham pulse in 2006 (under liberal > council admin may I add ) - raise eyebrows, point fingers, yawn !!! Source for this please? The only place I can find any mention of Coulson being DV'd is the Daily Mail... so please don't tell me you are a Daily Mail reader. And also, it comes back to what I said before... you know sod all about the vetting process. They don't report back on each stage, you know. Or, as it turns out, you don't know.

MissNoodlesHats Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Great points ladyD, u can only but hope that the 'men' of the household realise how much absolute > twaddle they spout ! Inflated egos, must be a cultural thing. Ahh. Dontcha just love that casual sexism. It tells you almost as much about people as casual racism.

Britain? Empire building? In the middle of the 19th century? You don't say! :)) But you'd have a harder time convincing me that was still the case today. I think you are overcooking your argument somewhat.