vortexring

To reiterate: It just keeps on getting better...

Ah...First thread I've read on SC this year and rhys pops up like a malevolent and trollish jack-in-the-box and we've a slagfest! It just keeps on getting better...

I think I ran someone over today in a powerboat off Koh Samui....... Happy Christmas fuckers!

Yes, as a non-muslim country, Switzerland has every right to ban building minarets. If the muslims have a problem with that, why don't they just fuck off to a muslim country if it's that big a deal to them?

I certaily don't think it would affect most of the chickenhawks... they are too busy and too special in their world. Perhaps. Maybe you'd be surprised over how many have seriously sleepness nights going over what they thought would be the best for everyone. As you'd no doubt be un-suprised over the other cunts thinking no further than their pathetic bank accounts....

Do you really think such visits would change their attitudes? Do you really think it's that simple? '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.'

Why didn't he just tell the police the fact there's a shotgun in his garden rather than arrange to 'pop' down and see the super? Or at least tell him why he's popping down? He's certainly guilty of ignorance but I'd expect him to receive nothing more than a reprimand of sorts. Anything more - if we take the story to be the truth - would be ridiculous. Perhaps there's more to his story though? Without evidence, what's to be gained by jailtime? Nuts. '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.'

Some points: It's all about a better life. Define, in terms you and your force will understand, what a better life is for those you have come to help. And make it happen. You don't have to kill a man to kill his courage. In COIN, you may only need to kill his resentment. less is more. Do not rush to failure; a forced coalition solution will not last - one that recognises local concerns may last a lifetime. Crime pays. Corruption and crime are a cancer to real progress. ID the criminal cultural norm and use it as a benchmark against which to drive crime down, bettering peoples lives. Now there's a fucking challenge... Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of the USA not on the battlefields of SE Asia.... If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, if you can walk with kings and not lose the common touch...It's not about rank. Listen to those who oppose the fight, those you are fighting and those who might just get you out of the fight. Academic or diplomatic credentials do not out weigh experience and common sense. Doctrine must be continually adjusted, drawn from current operational reality. And possibly the most important point; NATO must chose being either fully comitted to Afghanistan or just fuck off.

Sounds good to me. There isn't that many who haven't put across some form of PA in their replies - Marg and Wendy spring to mind, but it's a good point. Surprisingly there are already bitchy comments to this post (is this a subtle PA??), and perhaps your reasonable request is impossible through the fact that many people get off on doing their best to concuct non-direct PA's. Ultimately we might desire for face to face arguments; not so violence can solve the issue, but more for the element of mutual respect that you'll never be able to achieve on an internet forum. I've no doubt that certain people may have second thoughts on how they voice their counter arguments towards me in real life, compared to how they do so on here, but I don't really mind one way or the other. I've always provided individuals the opportunity to address the issues we so rudely disagree with to my face. Not a single one was ever willing to do so. Speaks volumes. I call it cowardice in my book. Although, despite always expecting this to be the case, I've often been disappointed by how many take the cowards road. The joy of the internet, eh? '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.'

Beyond utter belief. And I'd imagine it's an act they'll try and repeat. This is very bad. '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'm shocked. Especially with it happening so soon after an Afghan policemen killed 5 (could end up being more) British soldiers in Helmand. One of them was an old friend. Hope both incidents are not related in anyway. '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.'

Any news who the killer is/was? '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.'

Get in touch. '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? '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.'

Enjoyed your post but your last paragraph struck my attention. It's because they're trying to be despertley middle class. Ask them what their dog eats; it'll probably be some kind of expensive organic and rare to find dog food. Despite dogs eating their own faeces... Pretentious cunts.

Agreed. I did say I'd get back to counter-points I'd yet to address, but figured it'd be fairly pointless. The entire argument has been going around in circles for long enough. Anyone who wishes to feel they've therefore won the argument can feel free to do so, although the fact of the matter is that I can't be arsed. And I'm still against gay marriage, yet I'm neither homophobic, bigoted, racist, nor stupid. But also feel free to imply that I am if it suits you.

And that's me for the night distinguished ladies and gentlemen! I noticed I've not replied to some points posters had addressed to me earlier. I'll make the effort to do so next time - if you're still interested. . . '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 going round in circles . . . racism towards black people does not equate to people being against gay marriage. I find such logic offensive. Why? We're not gay, so how could we justify a gay marriage? It'd 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.'

Answer the questions I've addressed to yourself - and then I'll answer yours. '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.'

Sure, because by your logic, we'd have to allow the ridiculous. When did apes have human rights? >I'd imagine a significant amount of non-gay people sincerely wish gay >people every happiness they're perfectly entitled to, for them to have >equal rights, but marriage, through their sexuality, isn't one of them. Then they don't have equal rights. >If you can exclusively pin-point gay civil unions as being detrimental to >marriage, what's the solution for this? If desegregating schools increases school violence, what's the solution to _that_? Restoring segregation? Or solving the school violence problem? If marriages are going to fail because some bigots can't stand the thought of gays being married, and would rather divorce than share a ritual with the filthy, disgusting gays, then let them fail. We'll be better off as a people without such people raising children in a traditional marriage. Agreed. I'd also take offence at anyone who described gays as such. It's a genuine question though. What is the solution? '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.'

Reasons that were thoroughly refuted. It's your own selective memory that's up the spout. Where have you thoroughly refuted anything? I don't need any other reasoning than that. Yes you do. I'd like an expanation of why gay marriage shown to be detrimental to normal marriage in the Netherlands isn't harmful to a society and why you believe so. That's just for starters. Once you've achieved this aim, do the Dutch people a favour and explain it to them too. Obviously increasing evidence of marriage breakdown in the Netherlands isn't good enough for you, to name but one. ''A bit funny''. Okay. . . Who in the world do you think you're fooling? Were you not being emotional when you told Kallend to get fucked? Was that not a little rude? What about all the other people you've sworn at or insulted in this thread? What about all your snide jabs about being 'emotional'? Don't try and turn around and give yourself a fucking halo here boyo, it wouldn't fit you. I've been replying to your rude replies emotionlessly as I'd rather discuss the topic. I haven't made 'snide jabs' over your emotional state. I've simply advised you it's best remaining rational. It's a state I've quickly decided to be in, from having posted pissed earlier. Besides, if you're emotional over my rudeness to Kallend, I trust he's man enough and old enough to deal with it. Dry your eyes. Your last paragraph above is so pointless there is no reason to go back and check my last statement. Would you like to highlight some more typo's? Surely a man who makes type errors sums him up, eh? And there is an on-topic remark there too. As I've advised, pay attention. '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.'

From where do you reference such a conclusion? If a government can change a century old institution that's specifically for a man and women because gay people feel it's their human right to enter into such an institution, then equally it applies to people who wish to practice incest, or have multiple partners. Whilst some may think I'm homophobic, I can't understand why they wish to enter an institution for man and women. I'd imagine a significant amount of non-gay people sincerely wish gay people every happiness they're perfectly entitled to, for them to have equal rights, but marriage, through their sexuality, isn't one of them. As a man, I wouldn't insist it's my right to join a womens only gym (but how cool it would be if I could

What makes you so certain gay marriage won't have a detrimental effect on marriage. Studies indicate the opposite. A statement by Mildred Loving: =========== Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights. ============ From her perspective, the people trying to keep her from marrying the person she loved had exactly the same attitude that you had - it was just plain wrong. Just like gay marriage being just plain wrong? I don't. Rapists lose their rights by carrying out such acts. If everyone has the right to marry, why can't incests? Why can't pologymists? '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 would make incestuous marriage easier. As it would equally make polygamous marriage easier. '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 odd. Where did I say that? And the "it's just plain wrong" angle is the same angle used by the people who opposed interracial marriages, and kept them illegal in many parts of the US until 1967. Today, you think interracial marriages are OK, and that people who refuse to perform them are racists. Yet they are using the same logic; they just feel interracial marriages are wrong. Sure. But one is wrong and one isn't. Marriage is an institution; why should it be changed to it's detriment? Why should it be changed where studies have shown this to be so? Why should it be changed so that it'll be easier for incestuous people to marry? Would you go to a womens only gym and insist it's your human right to become a member? '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.'