Robsk II

That's a top notch answer. Why not just admit you're really, really dim?

Do you really think I don't know that? Yes, it became convenient to say it was all a fight against fascism after, and indeed at the time, but do you reallyu believe anyone here is retarded enough not to understand that it was a bit more complex than that? Christ on a bike.

You stupid f*cking idiot. You can't even read, can you? or appropriately take in information. I have VERY CLEARLY stated that imperialism can in turn become oppressive, and that some acts within it may have highly similar traits to fascist policies. The key difference is that fascism has these this kind of thing as a fundamental tenet; imperialism does not. You thick idiot. if you actually argue effectively, people might actually listen. I mean, it's exasperating. You've just picked up on something I've said, crystal clear, quoted a tiny segment, and then tried to pick a hole in it which I have clearly addressed not only in the same paragraph, but as the whole sodding point of the bit I wrote!

Imperialism is generally held to be advocating policies of expansion of sovereign rule to foreign / over sea lands. It's also associated with economic and political influence over weaker nation states. Fascism is a nationalist, authoritarian ideology which advocates single party states, and does not tolerate criticism or opposition. They usually subscribe to the concept of 'social darwinism', believing that nations and peoples must assert themselves over others to prove dominance, usually by combat. While some similarities exist, the simple fact of the matter is that imperialism does not necessitate massive repression. Imperialism can control and benefit from other countries in a relatively benign manner. Repression and negative acts, war etc, may happen as a part of it, but fascism demands these things.

While I don't want to believe the Lineker stories, it's hardly unlikely. Have to agree that Clarkson and Moyles must be in the top 3.

I'm not sure how bringing personal stuff into this thread is a good idea. At the end of the day, there are enough holes, gaping ones, to rip out of Stanley et als 'political' ideas.

Fosters, shrimps, barbie.

Tie me kangaroo down, sport* *In Aussie accent

I never realised you were an expert on humour, to be honest. You probably think 'killing n*ggers' is funny.

I'll be there, as will my +1.

I can't see how she wouldn't have done? I think it would be hard to argue in court she would not have been aware of the possible consequences of her actions, ie, that someone very ill may have been in the ambulance. As such, it would sort have been causing a death.

That's because of some of the societal values we still hold, which are technically sort of sexist, I suppose - ie women 'should' care more for children, etc. As it happens, I'm glad this case is brought to light because the old stereotype of a grubby mac-wearer needs to be changed. However, it is factual that the vast, vast majority of child abusers are men. the more disturbing thing as far as women guilt is concerned is that many have been aware of male abusers, and done nothing or colluded. One more thing I honestly think everyone should consider and actually have a think about - while there is this huge furore, and perhaps the case seems clear - we have a value in this country, or we should do, that says 'innocent until proven guilty'. I, like most others, just sort of assumed she was, but on reflection, the media and so on is incredibly dangerous in cases lke this. If she is innocent, then the media has been brutally unfair in leading the masses into these assumptions, and on the usual blood-baying witch-hunt and hate campaign, which will ruin a life totally. Don't take this as a defence of her if she is guilty. I would just suggest we should never presume guilt or innocence in the media. We should remain objective as far as possible until the justice system has played its role.

Cretinous and despicable little turds.

Yeah, I saw this too. I mean, what the f*ck? How could anyone do this? What sort of thing must possess people in order for them to act in this manner? As much as anything else, it's just odd.

I'm updating my status to 'likely' with a possible +1

You're a sodding search engine. It's the new name for Microsofts searching stuff, replaces Live Search, which was gash. Does some funny things with real time, and other bits that differentiate it from google, like rollover video rpeviews etc. Clearly their attempt to redress the dominance google has, or at least exploit a different market share.

Go to Condom.

I have flown to Stansted from Nimes, and can confrim that Nimes is 'OK'. I very nearly ended up sleeping under a bush with 30Kg of stuff and a canoe paddle. Thankfully, I had some life-affirming experience with some french version chavs who were overly helpful and nice and took me to a hotel that was near to the airport.

Go to Bordeaux.

I'm probably out this weekend, not 1005 sure but will give an IN if I'm coming.

tpbury - of course it isn't 'worse' than killing Ben Kinsella. Unfortunately both are representative of far too many people today who seem to lack any empathy or social skills. Killing anyone, or anything, for fun is basically barbarism and cruelty, and we should all have grown beyond this. I don't have a massive amount against killing to eat, even though I also believe we don't need to any more, and also don't credit this 'natural order' rubbish mucn either. it is far removed from meting out death for fun. I'm not religious, at all, but I do believe life is in some way sacred. What right does anyone have to end the existence of something? And, unless you're religious, why, fundamentally, is a human life worth 'more'? Of course on a special level we have every right to value it more, I guess, but in rationality, it doesn't make that much sense. Killing for fun means you should be f*cking sectioned, human or not.

The lolocaust was jokes. I'm not crying, fool. just think it's shocking.

I have to admit it's a tough one. Finishing them off once they're dying is a necessary evil, and is more kind than anything else. I would honestly generally try to avoid killing them, but I did grow up in the countryside and I do know how intrusive they can be etc. Having dogs seemed to put them off, to be honest, but the parents did poison them for a bit before converting to humane traps.

Yes.

How Stanley and SRS etc can make light of this is beyond me. I really can't express how barbaric an act I consider this to be. These behaviours are psychotic.