vortexring

What fucking tactical or even strategic secrets would they be privy to? You're barking up the wrong the tree mate - chasing parked cars like. '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.'

Hmmm, interesting over it's increasing price, having not heard of the situation, or the pretence of intellect of understanding what might be interesting?

Well, your opinion in regards to their self service actually agrees with mine. I'm still surprised you see Clinton's cowardice as being greater than wee georgies. He was never going to Vietnam. Never. And he was a wank pilot. Both their actions revolved around avoiding Vietnam. How can one be better than the other then? '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.'

What would you know about 'REMF's' prof? '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.'

With a bit of effort I'd be surprised if there wasn't 'a conflict of interest' to be found in this deal - or anything similiar. Way of the world. '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.'

"Whether you or Amazon are happy with the extent of his service is irrelevant. " That comment of mine was aimed at the relevance of any person's opinion of his service in reagrds to whether or not he served. Personally, I despise the fact that he skipped out on the last part of his obligation. But that does not negate the fact that he DID serve in the NG, he DID fly aircraft that were very unforgiving, he WAS in a squadron that could have been called up. What I am very curious is why the same people who condemn Bush for his military record always conveniently leave out the fact that Clinton flat out dodged the draft and refused to have anything at all to do with the military. That makes him ten times the coward that Bush was, along with anyone who defends Clintons actions. I know even worse cowards who fly even worse aircraft. '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.'

"Whether you or Amazon are happy with the extent of his service is irrelevant. " That comment of mine was aimed at the relevance of any person's opinion of his service in reagrds to whether or not he served. Personally, I despise the fact that he skipped out on the last part of his obligation. But that does not negate the fact that he DID serve in the NG, he DID fly aircraft that were very unforgiving, he WAS in a squadron that could have been called up. What I am very curious is why the same people who condemn Bush for his military record always conveniently leave out the fact that Clinton flat out dodged the draft and refused to have anything at all to do with the military. That makes him ten times the coward that Bush was, along with anyone who defends Clintons actions. Comparing them both in this context is very irrelevant - they both had a primary aim of avoiding service in Vietnam which is cowardice. The fact they were then later voted as American leaders is hilarious... Until one takes into account their actions as leaders... '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 isn't irrelevant Kelly - it's cowardice. '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 puzzled why you continually run these guys down. If you have even a below average intellect you'd see these poor examples of human beings as what they are. As for people who might disagree, despite having a vote - which is unfortunate; do they matter? '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.'

Due to the obvious reasons I've wanted to reply, but been a bit reluctant. I think anyone serving in the Helmand valley and putting their lives at risk deserves credit. With Harry it surely deserves even more credit concerning his background. I've always viewed the Queen with nothing more than the utmost of respect - and been disappointed when other Royals have behaved in a way they shouldn't. Including Harry. But what he's doing is of course very admirable - I'd expect many people wish his career to be long and successful. In regards to the media? The desire to gain wealth and success will always overcome moral sense. Hence questionable journalist behaviour. Who would expect anything else? '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.'

Hasn't there been some recent sightings of the Big Bad Wolf skulking around?

Er, can't think of a suitable political point of discussion for these pics, but check them out - you'll be impressed.

Has somebody decided to become all Troll like? '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 I'm sure the guy who thought up and marketed HESCO is sitting pretty too - why didn't I think of 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.'

They should go off and have a handbag fight amongst themselves - it might solve the bandwidth issue.... '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.'

Thanks for the interesting stories - it almost seems then that there isn't a great deal that can be done against this. But is that such a bad thing??? The AK story reminded me of a trip through the back roads of Arizona visiting your usual tourist haunts (apart from some amazing events that unfurled whilst in Flagstaff - but that's a different story!), and the great wide open roads and isolated houses made me make the simple conclusion that if I had to live there I'd have some fairly comprehensive home defence measures in place. So then, going about my day to day business, if for example, I have to travel into town; wouldn't it be prudent to have a weapon in the car? I can't say it would. I drove about without a wish for a weapon whatsoever. For me, feeling the need to carry was going into the realm of paranoia. I'm waffleing now. Goodnight! '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.'

MASS MURDER is dramatic. Which leads me to something I said earlier: 'It reminds me of what old Joe 'whaddya know' Stalin said: 'A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.' '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.'

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you agree? '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.'

Hiya Christel, The point I'm trying to make isn't to blame the media for all this. It's to decide if it might be a considerable factor of some sort. I think it may well be. Exactly how much so, I'm not sure, so I thought I'd bring the subject up!

I'll disagree because to dramatize is to make a story; to make things seem dramatic. Isn't this exactly what your average media outlet is trying to achieve? '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.'

Hmmm, guns don't kill people, the possibility of being on the news does. Well, actually, that is a small motivation in the minds of some, but are you suggesting that the news stop covering shootings? That's unrealistic. Of course it's unrealistic, so I'm therefore not suggesting that in the slightest.

Well, doesn't that go without saying? Besides, if the media are purposefully dramatizing then they no longer become simply a conduit of knowledge. And that's where my point lies. '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.'

In these cases again we have media dramatization exasperating the people with their story. Besides - what Government didn't lie. Lying to the people is the rule. '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 reminds me of what old Joe 'whaddya know' Stalin said: 'A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.' '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 have been a few posters here on SC that have kindly pointed out this point, from various websites, with the stat's to prove it. Of course. I've tended to not pay too much attention to these sites. I've found them slightly unethical as my interpretation has been that the news pieces from the sites are almost trying to explain away the problem. And doesn't it go without saying that your general media outlets have to dramatize - isn't it their 'law'? Now, the frequency of US school shootings is a serious problem. If you completely disregard the media it's still a massive problem. The reasons for this problem are numerous and contentious; so maybe I'm best not going into all my opinions for the causes of the problem... But there is something worth mentioning... Does the media actually have some involvement in the frequency of shootings through the attention the media will naturally generate? I believe the answer to be an unequivocal yes. Isn't that scary?