vortexring

Hahaha! You cock! How's things mate? :) Edit: Hope you're well to Missus 501 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Cheers - and likewise. I'm just astounded over the idea a grown up chap could mention the idea of God cracking the monument because he's pissed off at the US. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Lol! Yeah, and??? I was talking about the monument, alright? How are you btw? You still writing away about banning guns in the US my friend?

I wasn't too sure if it was going ahead myself. A Muslim friend did mention it's been cancelled, because, let's be frank here, the whole idea is ludicrous. So has it? I hope so. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Of course! That'll explain why it's just a crack...

Hi there beauty, back on stage with some kind words .... ? Hi sweetie, And why not? I'm astounded at the stupidity! I hope you're well.

Hey, they grasp at straws no matter how ludicrous. They find "meaning" in a crack at the Washington monument, but completly gloss over the fact that The White House appears to have come through without any damage whatsoever. So on the one hand, "god" is sending us a "sign," but they completely ignore that "he" doesn't seem to be upset at all with Obama. Haha - of course! Why would he?

Whilst our Muslim friends are rather sensitive and often quick to go off on one at the slightest slur on Islam; like the Danish cartoonist for example, why aren't they so sensitive to denounce acts of mass murder committed in the name of Islam. And why are they so insensitive to build a Mosque on the sight of a mass murder committed by Muslims? And why on earth are there people in America who support this??? Here's a link of someone asking the same questions who can ask far better than I can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4 Edit: Apparantly Pat's asking the question of how tasteless can it be; opening it on the 10th anniversary of Sept 11th: "...I'm surprised they haven't also organised a 757 flypast...". Bad voodoo man... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

How utterly insane...and American! What kind of utter, crackpot religious lunatic could believe nonsense!? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I've a recurring nightmare of being chased by Ronald McDonald armed with a chainsaw through Glasgow Central station. I explained that to a psychologist once and she stared at me from above her glasses for an uncomfortable moment then asked if I'd seen the film 'It'. We then had an argument about Pennywise and Ronald... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Funny article mate, although I'm surprised you're still publishing such media; a little birdy had told me you'd given up all your guns and now spent most of your time hugging trees and eating lentils... Guess not... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

There are other countries that have what's regarded as a high level of gun ownership per-head-of-population that don't have the same number of incidents concerning nutcases murdering the general population on a regular basis as America has. Where these countries often differ from America is that they don't quite have the same gun cultural issues where people are brought up on the power of the gun, and the gun as an expeditious means of sorting 'problems' out. So weapon proliferation combined with this culture results in continual and numerous incidents of random innocent people being murdered by mad people who, from gun proliferation caused through national cultural issues, had easy access to guns. So the solution is simple; solve the problem of gun proliferation by solving the problem of the gun culture. It doesn't matter how impossibly difficult that may seem, or how impractical such a draconian solution may be, because until such actions are taken effectively, America, as a nation, will continually suffer such mass murders in an ever increasing frequency. As it happens, if I found myself living in certain parts of America I know I could find security from owning a gun...But I'd still be able to recognise my personal gun ownership as being only a low level short term solution to my own perceived personal security problem. People from both sides of the gun-ownership argument should surely see that the proliferation and culture needs dealing with if the slayings are to stop. The political and media aspects of the problem are only secondary to the real causes. And what's the most effective means of reducing the proliferation? Indeed, what's the most effective way of dealing with the gun culture itself? Pretty self-evident I think. It's either that or you accept continual random slayings as the norm for your society. Fuck that. For the sake of a generation being deprived of what's effectively a security blanket, I know what option I'd prefer. Where's the patriotism you're all so famous for? These two issues which are the crux of your problem don't make America great; they condemn you in the most ridiculous fashion amongst the international community. And please don't see my opinion as America bashing - it's far from it, it's my objective point of view. As it's also my opinion that good never comes easy, and almost always requires huge amounts of self-sacrifice and determination. But squabbling like fucking kids over the constitutional right to deadly toys is a fundamental part of the problem. As is equating the fucking things to knives, or, jezusgodinheaven; spoons!? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It'd require a nationwide ban; hence a complete change in your culture, so DC and Chicago don't really come in to it. As for Rwanda; why are you comparing the USA to a 3rd world country? Is it because you see your gun culture as being similiar to that of a 3rd world country? Isn't it therefore time to evolve and modernise? As for knife crime over here: I've yet to hear of continual slaying of numerous innocents by madmen (or women), bearing knives. It isn't quite the same is it? Perhaps if we had a barbaric knife culture where people felt it necessary to go about their day-to-day lives armed with knives that could possibly change though? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

The reporting being factual based was my opinion from British newspapers and commentary. As for the trap you think I'm falling into...I think you missed my point mate, being that the problem is gun proliferation itself. Significantly reduce the availability of guns and you'll significantly reduce the number of innocents being murdered by madmen. Of course criminal elements will still access them through illegal means, such as here in the UK, and of course there will still be murders through guns. But reduce your weapon proliferation and you'll reduce the continual, and ever increasing (?), murder of innocents. It's a tough call; gun ownership is so deeply engrained into the American psyche it would require a massive change of your culture - so be it; hasn't America demanded similiar cultural change of other problematic nations? Ban the guns! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I'd like to mention some commentary from The Times (UK) I found particularly relevant: "... it may be that the country [USA] is suffering from a general vulgarisation of political discourse, in part driven by sections of the media as well as by grassroots politicians with scant sense of how words can be inflammatory." President Clinton is also mentioned in this particular article when he denounced conservative commentators years ago with "loud and angry voices" who "spread hate and leave the impression by their very words that violence is acceptable". That was written by the journalist in regards to Sheriff Dupnik mentioning "the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous", being that the words highlight a national phenomenom and over how much they may have influenced Loughner. His internet ramblings are said to be: "...clear echos of many of the distortions of fact and conspiracy theories that were once the preserve of the far Right but are now peddled in mainstream forums by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck". So this particular paper seems to agree with the the local sheriffs' belief that it is time for America to do some soul-searching over the state of its political rhetoric. Much of the reporting is factual though further issues on how & why an individual with a significant history of mental instability can just go out and buy a gun, despite an FBI check, don't seem to have been raised in as much depth as I'd expect. A poll to readers of the online Daily Mail asks:"Is political 'vitriol' behind the Arizona massacre?" Yes - 67% No - 33% This political 'vitriol' is akin to the squabbling often found right here in this thread regarding gun control; a national phenomenom right enough? But the political issues being raised are only part of the problem; as are the cultural issues raised by Belgiandraft earlier in the thread; and also the mental health issue raised by Lawrocket; the main problem remains weapon proliferation. It seems from an external viewpoint that it's time both sides unify and collectively deal with the gun problem because until they do the slaying of innocents by people such as Loughner will only continue. And before someone aggressively asks my opinion on a/the solution, could I ask first if you've spent much time constructively thinking of one? I've had this argument too many times in the past: America, as a modernised nation, has such a high rate of nutcases slaying innocent people directly through gun proliferation. It's such an obvious fact I never cease to be amazed that the gun supporters can't seem to recognize it, and deal with it. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You're still blinkered through your reply - I've already alluded to the wider issue; let's see if you can think outside the point you debate. You're not wrong in what you say, where we disagree is that it isn't such a simple case of sacking the man. Surely you must be capable of seeing that? Do you really think he made the points he made without considering the ramifications? You must understand that being a soldier doesn't just mean you should blindly do your duty without question; look at the Nazi's, look at Abu Ghraib. Whilst it's relatively out of context, the point I make is that would you, as a military commander, speak out against your political masters wrong-doings, or would you simply just shut your mouth and do as your told? Hence my reasoning that you're looking at the whole issue with tunnel vision mate. Do you disagree with what he says? Would you have sacked Monty if he shot his mouth 5 days into Normandy when they hadn't broken through the beach-head? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You're looking at this issue with tunnel vision, and with scant regard to the wider issues. At this level, it's too simplistic to make things so black and white. It isn't so simple as you see it. Hence the quandary.

General McChrystal and his aides were wrong, hence the quandary for your President. Already I see numerous well written articles springing up supporting and deriding McChrystal and also Obamas' decision. What if Petraeus is critical of his political bosses publically? And the next General? And the next? What if someone actually pays a bit more attention to what they're critical of? A dressing down for insubordination? Indeed. A forced resignation? No. Perhaps Petraeus will rapidly succed in Afghanistan and Obamas' decision will be seen as a political master-stroke. I certainly hope so, although I see it now as a frustrating step back to what was a positive and coherant strategy. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

And they've sacked him! Whoops 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

This is fascinating: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/22/obama-general-stanley-mccrystal-afghanistan The on-going senior military v's politician debacle continues...Is it just me or are coalition Generals' and Politicians' having a bit of a bitching contest on the go here? What on earth could possibly be wrong? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Indeed mate, I think I might of seen the same picture you mention; worst of the weather is in the east; air mass causing it all is coming from the north east (Polar/Scandinavia/Russia) itself. Nice to have a proper winter for a change though. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Unusually cold here in England...and Beijing. Although it was tropically toastie in Koh Samui; thank f for that. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Al Gore's 'carbon credit' company? Fair enough - at the very least that can encompass our species lackadaisical mindset towards what really counts.... Anyway, you crack on with your global warming sparring session with Bill; ding ding: Round 374 589...

Perhaps the only real thought worth thinking of is the simple and rather obvious fact being that the weather man always speak with forked tongue! Scientists may well collate suitable data which support their theories but unfortunately it's pretty frickin' far from being conclusive at the moment, either way. If indeed global warming does get eventually proven as being a result of our carbon emissions, it'll more than likely be too late anyway. So who gives a shit?

No, not unequivocally; unfortunately there are people where society in general would be better off without. Perhaps that then raises the death penalty debate... In general I would say that the average human life is more important than any animals - do we find walking or entering a butchers shop as emotional as observing soldiers or civilians killed in Afghanistan? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'