6underground

shmexy!

Congrats hotdogs!! Well deserved

Saint David's day usually results with school children dressing up in traditional dress for school and eisteddfod's (variety performances). There's a large parade in the Welsh Capital yearly and men usually attach a daffodil or leek to their coat (as they are national symbols of Wales). It's all very low key and quite dignified.

Personally not to sound lazy but I think gay rights is something other people campaign about. I have strong feelings about too much else (global warming, ammnesty interenational etc etc) to have time to worry about gay rights.quote> To be honest, IMHO, it's probably because you live in the U.K that has an affect on how much you protest about gay rights. The U.K as a whole tends to be very liberal when it comes to sexuality and awareness about gay people, with that in mind, many gay people therefore don't feel the need so much to campaign about Gay rights because, by law and society they are largely accepted. I don't know about you, but I don't think i'd be accepted (or even tolerated) nearly as much if I lived in some parts of the U.S or Australia.

very pretty Carmine, keep it up!

More - To the Thinker If you question or wonder why if, or ponder how and lie think and wonder more and less is this "it", or try to guess- what's the purpose, why and how for this life, that is a mess should you be here, this second now? destined for more, or purpose test? A riddle this, existence now - Perhaps there's been a mistake somehow? When all's been said and questioned more lest beware times dwindling shore for when you hear the herald's call There wont be time to think of "more". Myself

The UN is ineffective. Nothing that it does really has any major effects.quote> Really? Let's put it into perspective then: Major Achievements of the UN: Maintaining peace and security - By having deployed a total of 42 peace-keeping forces and observer missions as of September 1996, the United Nations has been able to restore calm to allow the negotiating process to go forward while saving millions of people from becoming casualties of conflicts. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation. Making peace - Since 1945, the United Nations has been credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts. Recent cases include an end to the Iran-Iraq war, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, and an end to the civil war in El Salvador. The United Nations has used quiet diplomacy to avert imminent wars. Promoting democracy - The United Nations has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections, including those held in Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Mozambique, Nicaragua and South Africa. It has provided electoral advice, assistance, and monitoring of results. Promoting development - The UN system has devoted more attention and resources to the promotion of the development of human skills and potentials than any other external assistance effort. The system's annual disbursements, including loans and grants, amount to more than $10 billion. The UN Development Programme (UNDP), in close cooperation with over 170 Member States and other UN agencies, designs and implements projects for agriculture, industry, education, and the environment. It supports more than 5,000 projects with a budget of $1.3 billion. It is the largest multilateral source of grant development assistance. The World Bank, at the forefront in mobilizing support for developing countries worldwide, has alone loaned $333 billion for development projects since 1946. In addition, UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries. Promoting human rights - Since adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the United Nations has helped enact dozens of comprehensive agreements on political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. By investigating individual complaints of human rights abuses, the UN Human Rights Commission has focused world attention on cases of torture, disappearance, and arbitrary detention and has generated international pressure to be brought on governments to improve their human rights records. Protecting the environment - The United Nations has played a vital role in fashioning a global programme designed to protect the environment. The "Earth Summit," the UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, resulted in treaties on biodiversity and climate change, and all countries adopted "Agenda 21" - a blueprint to promote sustainable development or the concept of economic growth while protecting natural resources Preventing nuclear proliferation - The United Nations, through the International Atomic Energy Agency, has helped minimize the threat of a nuclear war by inspecting nuclear reactors in 90 countries to ensure that nuclear materials are not diverted for military purposes. Promoting self determination and independence - The United Nations has played a role in bringing about independence in countries that are now among its Member States. S

To all those Allies who fought bravely for my very existence. Thank you. To ALL Commonwealth Nations, a huge thank you. To the U.S.A, a huge thank you. To the French, Dutch, Spanish, Greek and all other allies in Europe, thank you. To those resistance fighters, viva liberty!

You have guessed incorrectly though. Democracy is rule the by people. If everyone chooses not to vote, who's running the country? Answer - someone who assumes the power to do so unless laws allow them to stay in there until voted out. Then you don't have democratic representation.quote> I didn't say everyone, I just said you. Yes, I remember that. Maybe the coverage was worse for it over there, but over here, I've seen the US get ripped about as bad for Bush making a retarded policy decision in which no one got killed as things got for the UN after Bosnia.quote> Probably over there, but the Bush' policy, of say, Patriot act didn't recieve as condemnation here as the Bosnia Crisis. The problem with the UN, as we've already seen, is that even if the Democratic Majority thinks one way, there's not a thing they can do to stop the actions of anyone unless it's some small country no one really fears, or enough of them are willing to go along with it.quote> Like what Voar?! As I already explained, IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE UN to attack/conquer/invade or otherwise endorse UN coalition forces to attack another member state on the request of one other member state. It s a place of comprimise, mutual agreements and co-operation in a unipolar world. I promise you that if you took away everyone's veto powersquote> Who is everyone?! Only 5 member states have the power to Veto. I believe the5 permanent members should no longer have these benefits, since they insisted upon them when the UN was founded, NOT the UN. The thing is though, right now, powerful nations can veto it before it even gets where the Democratic Majority can step in, thereby saving the UN considerable humiliation.quote> Likewise, silencing views and opinions too Either you forgot what the Rwanda situation was like, or you don't know what 1,000K means.quote> Or perhaps you don't know what you're talking about? 97,000+ Bosnia 800,000 + Rwanda Perhaps you should actually be a little bit more careful where you get your info from and not jump the gun? Imagine that if i were Bosnian or Rwandan, i'd be very annoyed with your right now. But again, why on Earth are you comparing them? Rwanda was, statistically speaking, six to ten times as bad as Bosnia (1,000K = 1,000,000). The point is that the UN made a vastly bigger blunder, and little was done. The reason - it happened somewhere else.quote> Again, you're statistically incorrect, as is your latter argument (If not highly offensive). You imply that the UN was forgiven because Rwanda didn't happen in Europe? If so, perhaps you should re-evaluate your humanity, they are not statistics or just numbers. The U.N cares for all creeds, numbers do not factor in it and as I said, the U.N couldn't do anything because the mandate DIDN'T ALLOW THEM TOO. They could ONLY Peacekeep in the nation. Unless the Google results were wrong, my figures were fine.quote> Again, wrong. Just to give you an example, the UN ran an ad over in the US during whatever they're last major anniversary was (I'm thinking 60th) touting themselves as<

No, I vote for the lesser of two evils. There's a difference. Voting for ineffectual government means you're condoning it. Voting for the lesser of two evils means you hate both of the people running, think they're both grossly unfit for the job, but there's not a thing you can do about it because you have a moron in office and a moron running against him.quote> Unless you're Australian, you aren't forced to vote. If neither side is deserving of your vote, then why vote for either? I would have guessed it to be rather straight forward? Well, besides the fact that there is no such thing as a "filthy liberal,"quote> Not true, if you're the infamous Bill 'O Rielly, or one of his ilk! haha my grandkids would have been paying it off anyway, as will I. Now, while I'm at it, the wording may convey that to you, but to me, it still means billions and trillions.quote> which was exactly my point to begin with. The difference is, now you have more debt to pay off than ever before, dare I say, much less to pay, had the war never happened. I see how. The UN has a grossly outdated mandate, and instead of blasting them like what would happen if the mandate belonged to the US, the response is basically "oh, they're revising it."quote> Did you not see the condemnation after Bosnia then Voar? There was widespread condemnation of the U.N after the failure during Bosnia. Hence it propogated the reform process. Which is why the UN is pretty much powerless. It can't really do anything unless you can get everyone to agree on it.quote> Not everyone, Democratic Majority. Now, if you don't respect democratic majority or the processes behind that, then perhaps you shouldn't live in a democratic nation? DEATH TOLLS: Bosnia: 90K - 125K Rwanda: ~1,000K While all loss of life is tragic, by the numbers, you can't validly compare the two.quote> uh... Voar, let me requote you: That is REALLY passing the onus off quite easily. If the US had done that, we'd never hear the end of it. If some Rwanda-like incident had happened in Europe, the UN would have been dissolved (which, imho, would be a pretty sweet thing, but I digress).quote> So you're saying that the U.N wouldn't be dissolved if 150,000+ died in Europe during a genocide, but would if it was Rwanda (1,000) lives?! Secondly, the issue wasn't even about comparisons (no idea where y got that from), your point was that a genocide happened in Europe (much more notable there than Africa supposedly), then the U.N would be dismantled. Which IS incorrect,because Bosnia IS IN EUROPE. The fact of the matter is, that unlike your "prediction", European members pushed to reform the U.N despite its failing because it see's the good the U.N has done for the world rather than scrap it completely. *I think you got your figures the wrong way round, don't rush wiki* Why let an organization that claims to be more than it really is get away with talking big about stuff it can't do?quote> And where exactly is evidence of this then? The U.N doesn't speak as one cohesive voice, it speaks with everyone's.You cannot blame an organisation for the failures of its members. To use an allegory, if two boy scouts out of 100 steal a chocolate bar from another scout, is it the failing of the entire Scouts, or the behaviour of two of them?

McWires: For all your fatty needs. McLishious! I'm McWiring it! Chicken Mcwire Do you want Mcwire with that? Supersize McWire!

Could you find a source to cite this other than Wiki? When even the wiki community is debating the neutrality of one of their articles on political stuff, that's as good as a red flag saying "I'm not a credible citation."quote> try this: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century As for wiki, it's only been tagged since may after the entires about Clinton were added, not before. See, talk page. additionally, it isn't as good as saying this "isn't credible", it actually says the neutrality of the article is being questioned, which is vastly different Voar. Actually, climate change = catastrophe isn't right-wing propaganda. It's about as left-wing as you can get.quote> Actually, I was refering to the typical response from right-wingers when anyone mentions climate change = "The sky is falling!" *sarcasm* (with no ability to take the issue seriously). Welcome to the great quandry of democracy. The people who want to run for office are the people you don't want in there, and the people you really want in there don't want the office.quote> So... In essence, you also vote for an ineffectual government? Please don't tell me that you honestly think that we'd get the debt paid off in even a hundred years if Bush hadn't been elected.quote> You misinterpret (obviously thinking i'm a "filthy liberal"), It doesn't matter if it were a republican or a democrat, it all boils down to the choices made by that person. In this case, your grandchildren will be paying off the debts from this war for many, many years to come. Sure, he added to it, but no one's done a thing about the debt at all - Republican or Democrat, and no one will.quote> Aside from the pessimism, added to it, is like saying I added $80 to your $40 debt. That is REALLY passing the onus off quite easily.quote> I REALLY don't see how, The mandate hasn't been revised since it was made effective in the 40's. The World has SIGNIFICANTLY changed since then. If the US had done that, we'd never hear the end of itquote> The difference is, the U.N has no army, is not a country and is completely dependent upon the contributions from it's members. It's an organisation akin to a forum. It has no powers in itself, only through its members. If some Rwanda-like incident had happened in Europe, the UN would have been dissolved (which, imho, would be a pretty sweet thing, but I digress).quote> I completely disagree in your latter statement (but am not surprised, since many Americans don't seem to value it at all), secondly... The U.N wasn't disolved when the Bosnia crisis occured, last time I looked that happened in Europe (genocide also happened there). Why then let them off the hook so easily?quote> Why blame an organisation that is dependent on YOU? The UN has proven that they're really nothing more than a colossal waste of time and moneyquote> Probably why your nation hasn't lived upto it's promises and owes the U.N milions of dollars. I doubt you'd be saying that if you saw the starving Africans dying of starvation without U.N aid.. That's just for starters... They haven't really accomplished a single thing that they set out to do.quote> Really? las

As for the opinion of the rest of the world, there's always someone out there hating America for something. But I don't see many people risking their lives to get into those countries like they do here. Do you realize how many American inventions are involved just in the posting of a forum thread? The pc, modem, microprocessors, telephones, etc. We have our issues, to be sure. But we have elevated the entire planet, even those who hate us. And we never get a thank you, just a lecture from those who don't even live here. quote> I beg your pardon?! The Telephone's origin/invention is in dispute, It may have been Scottish: Alexander Bell, German: Johann Philipp Reis, Italian: Antonio Meucci or American: Elisha gray. This is also true for computers. Need I go on? Please don't play the "America is responsible for all this technology", as a blanket argument for everything. It's like if the U.K developed a cure for cancer then nuked India. ALL is forgiven though because we have a cure for cancer! Is that what you are saying? Because, you are responsible for SOME technological advancements, means you are infallible and not privvy to any kind of criticism. Is this correct, or have I misinterpreted? Additonally, it's not wise to somehow believe that your nation has been responsible for all/much technological developments, because I think you'll find much of it is actually spread globally, especially Japan. btw: British brains dominate list of geniuses Have you thanked us for them yet? Or, do we have to wait a little while longer? On the subject of gratitude, how about the aid the European Union sent to you in the aftermath of Katrina or the millions of Euros andother currencies from other nations sent to the U.S? Did you thank those too? You see,it's a two way process. You seem to be under the impression that your government/nation holds up the rest of the world and are responsible for nearly every kind of discovery and advancement. I sincerely recommend you get out there and look outside your borders, you'll find a vastly different story where every nation is advancing in different ways. It sounds arrogant to me (sorry) to assume otherwise and probably the reason why so much anti-Americanism has prospered everywhere because ignorance robs people of their pride while you claim it as yours.

U.K is the correct term. Otherwise it's like me putting down: South Dakota, France, Japan, etc... Just FYI.

Looks like the flood defences kept alot of it out

England? Surely you mean U.K there? After all Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish died for the U.K or do you state otherwise?

Barb is correct, but to go further: 1) Kofi Annan was an incompetent crook. He was profiting off of his own corrupt 'oil for food' scheme.quote> Kofi Annan was democratically elected MANY times by the international community for the EXCELLENT job he did at the U.N. He didn't profit at all from the oil for food scandal, infact he wasn't even involved with it, his son was. All of that, as Barb rightly pointed out is besides the point. The U.N charter, which your government effectively peed on, was violated and instead of seeking international co-operation at the U.N, your government choose to defile the sacred oath previous presidents of the U.S adhered to (to avoid any other world war) in pursuit of revenge. 2) Iraq's ties to international terrorism are well documentedquote> like Weapons of Mass destruction could be launched against the U.K within 45 seconds documented? Provide this documentation then? Additionally, if they were so massively against terrorism, then why did your government support Saddam's regime to begin with? 3) Who cares what the rest of the world thinks...they have their own embarrassments.quote> The U.S cannot exist on its own two legs, it is dependent on the good faith of its neighbours and allies, you annoy and upset the people of those nations, then you can expect their populace to adopt non-US friendly governments. I for one care. 4) The WMD intel was much better-corroborated than we have been told. Israel's Mossad even found where it went in the opening days of the war- Syria!quote> Then where are they? The war has gone on for years and still.... Nothing. Are you really that blind, not to see that a catalyst that supposedly threatened the west has now somehow disappeared? 5) Anyone from Chicago can tell you, Mayor Daley is the same way, and he's been in office for over 20 years. Bush has an MBA from Harvard, I believe him to be literate, at least.quote> Mayor Daley doesn't have a book dedicated to "Bushisms". Where his constructed sentences are an absolute mess and often contradictory/irregular. 6) Another shadow group? Every pres since Kennedy has been CFR, yada yada.quote> I'm not talking about CFR, I'm talking about NEW AMERICAN CENTURY. Look at the article, principally the cabinet and draw attention to middle eastern positions, I think thatimplies alot of activity and agenda, don't you? 7) Kyoto was a joke, and there are many of us who don't believe the sky is actually falling. I don't want the government to jump on every bandwagon before the jury is in.quote> Why does your opening statement imply that climate change = catastrophe. Perhaps you've been reading too much right-wing propoganda on the issue. The fact of the matter is, human population is increasing not decreasing, logic dictates that more pollution is proportionate to that increase. Ergo, we need to adapt our industries to be less polluting. The Federal Gov't is never effective, and even less so in an emergency.quote> So... You elect a government that is ineffective... my my. Perhaps you should question yourself and where your vote goes. 9) Oh, c'mon...do you really expect a Christian conservative to be for gay rights? Let's keep some perspective.quote> Religion has no place in government, there is a reason for separation of state and government,

- acknowledge the International Court in Den Haag quote> I couldn't agree more my German friend. (British, btw)

TO ALL: name 10 things that are wrong with the pres of the US!quote> 1) Violated United Nations Charter - Confirmed by Kofi Annan 2) Invaded Iraq under the guise that it was harbouring terrorists (when, America had previously supported Saddam's rule and it was known that Saddam and Bin Laden did not like each other) 3) Utterly ruined America's image across the world to citizens of other countries(Foreign relations) 4) Supplied inaccurate and misleading data to the U.K that claimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (still nothing has been found). 5) Barely articulate 6) Member of the "New American Century" (as well as much of his cabinet), who's sole purpose is to enforce American sovereignty across the world. 7) Largely ignored climate change and the need to act with the international community to tackle the problem. His government was highly ineffective after the turmoil of Hurricane Katrina. 9) Consistently opposes gay civil unions (by proxy denying the rights of individuals and a minority). 10) Borrows billions of U.S Dollars that could be better spent elsewhere to fight an enemy that can't be killed with weapons (terrorist ideology).

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572287/20071018/nas.jhtmlquote> Only difference being, Gay guys don't say to other gay guys "Oh that's so gay", "You're so gay", "That TV is Gay", "That toothbrush is gay for being pink". Whereas, the use of ni**er is quite different.

Is any system perfect? Nope. But services like police, fire, and health care are too important to be put into the hands of any private company. I don't trust the government, but I trust companies even less.quote> I completely agree with you Zel, 100% The issue isn't just an economical/fiscal one, it's an ethical one! For us in the U.K, the prospect of abandoning the NHS in favour of privatised health IS utterly appalling. Would Americans privatise your armed forces, if it were possible? Vest the safety of your nation to a corporation, that exists solely for the pursuit of greed and profit? ========================== Off topic But if i hear ONE MORE person using "England" synonymously with "U.K" , I will explode.

Honestly? I completely wouldn't care. Doesn't bother me one bit. Remember what I said about sticks and stones earlier.quote> It still stands to reason that some people would find it offensive and since the term is offensive, logic would dictate that no-one should use it.

What I found interesting about the article: Rudy Giuliani, the front-runner for the 2008 Republican nomination, was accused last night of smearing the NHS to attack Democratic plans for universal healthcare in America. Mr Giuliani launched a radio advertising campaign saying that the proposals from Democrats such as Hilary Clinton smacked of European-style socialism that would lower standards in the US. “I had prostate cancer five, six years ago,” the former New York mayor said. “My chance of surviving prostate cancer – and, thank God, I was cured of it – in the United States? 82 per cent. My chance of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 per cent under socialised medicine.” (Note: Politican is still utterly uninformed, NHS operates U.K wide not just in England) His advert prompted Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, to make a rare intervention into US politics as he pleaded with Mr Giuliani to stop kicking the NHS. Mr Johnson told The Times: “The British NHS should not become a political football in American presidential politics. Our rate of prostate cancer survival is actually much higher than has been claimed. The latest data shows a survival rate of over 70 per cent – and increasing.” Related Links The Office for National Statistics says that the five-year survival rate from prostate cancer in Britain is 74.4 per cent. Mr Giuliani’s campaign did not give an immediate response. But a spokeswoman has previously insisted that he would continue to repeat the statistic and run the advertisement. (Propogating a lie for their own agenda) She said the 44 per cent figure came from an article in a “highly respected intellectual journal” published by the right-wing Manhattan Institute, which he had read because “he is an intellectually engaged human being”. (Bulls**t, the office of national statistics is the definitive source) The article’s author, David Gratzer who is an adviser to Mr Giuliani’s campaign, has acknowledged to The New York Times that the statistic is seven years old and “crude”. He said that it came from the Commonwealth Fund, which specialises in health policy issues. But the same organisation has since issued a statement accusing Dr Gratzer of misusing its research. Mr Johnson himself cited a report this year from the Commonwealth Fund that placed Britain’s health system top of a league table of six nations including Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United States. “While neither health system is perfect, the recent Commonwealth Fund report placed the UK system at the top of its analysis and the US at the bottom,” Mr Johnson said. US health experts also disputed both the accuracy of Mr Giuliani’s figures and questioned whether it was fair to make a direct comparison. Doctors in the two countries have different philosophies for treating the disease, with the US putting more emphasis on early diagnosis and surgery. An analysis of mortality rates suggests that about 25 out of 100,000 men are dying from prostate cancer each year in both Britain and the US. Brantley Thrasher, at the University of Kansas Department of Urology, told The Washington Post that it was “impossible to say” whether a prostate cancer patient has a better chance of surviving under a “capitalistic” or “socialistic” medical system. Ian Thompson, of the University of Texas, said: “Certainly, if you intensively screen for prostate cancer, you will find early disease. And simply because you find it earlier, you will always have long

Guys my age throw "gay" around as an insult all the time, but it doesn't necessarily mean they have any problem with homosexuality. It's being used in a generic sense almost all the time. This seems to be the same type of thing. He's not racist, he's just using the word for effect. I don't see anything wrong with that.quote> It may not necassarily mean they have a problem with homosexuality, but for goodness sake, delve a bit deeper. "Gay" in the context of using this "new" term to describe something "stupid" is directly related to veiled hatred at homosexuality. It's not a separate thing at all, it's just prejudice dressed up as evolving language terminology (and people arebuying into this slang as a "cool" term like blind sheep). How exactly would you feel if someone said, oh that's so "hetro"... or, "That's such a breeder thing to do", it isolates people and makes them feel that gay = stupid. I for one don't tolerate it, if used around me I most certainly put them in their "place" and recommend anyone do the same. You wouldn't tolerate someone saying "Oh that's so black" or, "That's so nig*erish", so why allow a double standard or hypocrisy? I simply don't understand how people can use these terms knowing that they isolate and make people feel bad because it's "cool" and popular to do it. The funny thing is, most people just don't realise the offence they cause to other minorities, because the minority is never really in the position to do anything about it. [/rant]