GRIMLY FIENDISH

In a way, yeah.... :lol:

Have you heard some of the stuff Michelle Bachmann's been coming away with....? That's a whole different level of crazy..... :mellow:

Which proves he's not "insane" or just some random crazy if he can actually lucidly plan and think ahead in that manner... His actions were pre-meditated, I wouldnt at all be surprised if he had researched police response times....

There's an open letter going around on Facebook as well from Belgian music magazine Side Line..... http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=46638_0_2_0_C

Precisely...

It would certainly appear so.... -_-

http://www.metro.co.uk/music/870664-morris...-actions-of-kfc Well, wacky old Moz is at it again it would appear.... This time appearing to reduce the massacre of 70 Norwegian kids to the level of the slaughter of animals bred for food.... ‘We all live in a murderous world, as the events in Norway have shown, with 97 dead. Though that is nothing compared to what happens in McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried S*** every day.’ I used to respect you man, I even kind of forgave you for all the Union Jack/NF imagery stuff, but this time you've lost it, you've gone WAY off the reservation with this incredibly insensitive remark, that you no doubt thought was clever when you were saying it, but I really really hope you look at yourself in the mirror and actually realise what a tit you are and make a retraction.... I've got plenty of Vegan and Vegetarian friends who are also appalled by this remark too, so you dont represent the views of ALL the Vegans and Veggies out there Mr Morrissey..... You've clearly contracted "Glen Beck Syndrome".... -_-

Yep, pretty much feel the same... Quite like them when I was at school, but just increasingly found them pompous and over-blown when I started listening to bands like My Bloody Valentine, Sonic Youth, Pixies, Radiohead, Nirvana, Pulp, etc... I always respected Freddie the Showman, but as a band, I just find them awful now....

They probably would be to a collector....

Oh, yeah, it would be difficult to do it just now certainly what with the sheer lunacy of having the $31 trillion debt (that being the $15 trillion official one that the Fed admitted to plus the $16 trillion paid in loans that they tried to sneak under the radar....), but when you hear the likes of Ben Bernanke getting up and saying basically that "gold isn't money", you know that the lunatics have got the keys to the asylum..... Or rather in this case, thanks to Bush and Obama, the klepto-crats have the keys to the US Treasury.......

Obama has become a two-faced hypocrite since taking office... It's not only Guantanamo, it's the whole thing with the banks (before he took office it was all "no banks should be too big too fail", but what's he actually DONE about the banks...? Seems to me that in appointing a fool like Ben Bernanke - who wont even admit that gold is currency - to the Fed he's just carrying on the same mistakes), and his position on Mercenaries in Iraq (oops, sorry, meant to say "Private Contractors") has completely shifted.... Witness the whole Blackwater debacle, and the fact that while he may be pulling out troops, there is actually going to be a 5000-strong deniable and completely unaccountable private army heading out to Iraq.... Frankly, I'd rather have the soldiers out there than a bunch of f**king mercenary scum..... At the end of this report, you see complete 180 degree u-turn illustrated when the RT correspondent puts across the contrast between what SENATOR Obama said with what PRESIDENT Obama actually does..... BANXw3cQohI But, GAWD, doesn't it say a LOT about American politics when Obama is actually the preferable option to any of the bat-shit crazy, lunatic Republicans and Tea-baggers....... Even former Reagan admin aides and staffers think they're slightly loony.....

Printing too much money ends up being a very bad idea in the end... We used to have The Gold Standard (basically, defined as thus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_gold_stan...ng_definitions), then someone decided to dump that idea and base things on Fiat Currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but because of the world banking crisis there has been a lot of advocacy to return to gold and silver.....

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Indeed, and someone should mention to Rupert Murdoch the next time he does one of his acting jobs, "hey, dude, this is how 'humbled' is supposed to look"...... -_-

Glenn Beck is either going to end up dead, in jail, or waving a gun in public.... He's completely deranged.... -_-

Well.... Check this out.... Here they are talking about the $2 trillion debt ceiling and plastering it all over the media, and then somehow missing something that is far, far worse and surely infinitely more scandalous..... HUykpqlEvn0 Well done to Russia Today for exposing this little unexploded bomb.....

US debt limit: Obama and Boehner trade blows on impasse Source - BBC News US President Barack Obama and Republican House Speaker John Boehner have blamed each other for the deadlock over the federal debt crisis, as a deadline to avert a default looms. Mr Obama condemned the Republicans' insistence on steep budget cuts and warned of a "reckless" outcome if the debt ceiling is not raised by Congress. Mr Boehner responded by accusing the president of seeking a "blank cheque". The US risks default without a deal to raise the borrowing limit by 2 August. The federal government runs a budget deficit that topped $1.5tn (£920bn) this year, and has amassed a national debt of $14.3tn. 'Balanced approach' Votes to raise the US debt limit have historically been a matter of routine in the US Congress, but this year, Republicans - buoyed by a newly elected crop of fiscal conservatives - have refused to agree to a debt increase without significant reductions in the budget deficit. In negotiations, the chief sticking points are Republican resistance to raising taxes and the Democrats' desire to protect social programmes for the poor and elderly, and a public pension scheme. In a live televised address on Monday night, Mr Obama said: "Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they'll vote to prevent America's first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach." The president reiterated his call for a "balanced approach", based on a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases on the rich. He said the only reason this was not "on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach". That approach, he added "doesn't ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all". He said: "Most Americans, regardless of political party, don't understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get." Concern over jobs Responding to the president immediately after his speech, Mr Boehner insisted the US government's "spending binge" was over. Click to play John Boehner: "The president wanted a blank cheque six months ago and he wants a blank cheque today" "The president has often said we need a 'balanced' approach - which in Washington means: we spend more... you pay more. Having run a small business, I know those tax increases will destroy jobs." Mr Boehner agreed the US "cannot default on its debt obligations", but showed no indication he or his Republican caucus were willing to compromise on tax increases. And he called on Democrats to approve Republican proposals. The president and Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate have been negotiating for weeks over legislation to raise the debt ceiling and cut the nation's budget deficit. Continue reading the main story The talks have broken down several times. In order to become law, any plan would require agreement from disparate factions within both parties and to pass both chambers of Congress. In Monday's latest round of negotiations, Senate Democrats introduced a plan that would trim $2.7tn (£1.66tn) over a decade. The plan would protect social programmes for the poor and elderly and a public pension programme - all popular among Democrats. It would not raise new tax revenue. House Republicans, meanwhile, unveiled their own plan that included $1.2tn (£736tn) in cuts, caps on future spending, and offered a $1tn debt ceiling increase - not enough to last through the 2012 election. In his White House address later, Mr Obama firmly rejected the Republican plan, in part because it would require another round of debt limit talks in six months. "We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits," he said. "There's no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road." He endorsed the Senate Democrats' plan as "a much better path", though one that would fall short of his goals to reform the tax system and social programmes. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the US Treasury could run out of money to pay all of its bills - which could lead to interest rate rises, threaten the US economy and in turn the global recovery. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And, another article - this time a satirical one... I've included this because there are times when satire can cut through all the crap to really get to the essential brutal truth and honesty of an issue, and this is one of those times, IMO.... We’d much rather bankrupt the world than pay any tax, argue US Republicans Source - Newsthump.com http://newsthump.com/2011/07/26/we%E2%80%9...us-republicans/ US Republicans continue to happily push the US towards bankruptcy as they laughed off the latest attempt from Senate Democrats to force them to pay some taxes. The Democrats’ latest proposal involves raising taxes for the rich while helping the poor and the elderly – a suggestion which appears preposterous to their opponents. Republican John Boehner explained, “Once again, we completely reject these unrealistic plans which need us to part with some of our millions.” “They seem to expect us to give up a bit of our endless hordes of cash in an attempt to support those less well-off. Where do they think we are, the UK!?” “If we can hold off an agreement for just a bit longer, we’ll virtually guarantee getting that non-American out of the White House. A world financial meltdown would be a small price to pay.” Republican supporter Dwight Manning told us, “The President makes a compelling argument about asking multi-millionaires and oil companies to pay more tax before asking the elderly to pay more for medical treatment.” “He’s just seems to have forgotten that most of us Republicans couldn’t give two shits about the well-being of elderly people.” US debt crisis President Obama presented a speech on the matter, using quite a lot of challenging vocabulary that 95% of watching Americans failed to understand. “My fellow Americans, the Republicans have stopped trying to prove I’m not American for long enough to tell us where to shove our latest deficit-reduction plan.” “They have put forward their own proposal in response, which makes absolutely no sense to anyone – especially to themselves.” “Some good news is that if Congress carries on like this, in a couple of months there will be no calculator in the world powerful enough to work out the national debt figure.” “Create the greatest democracy in the worldTM, and this is what you get.”

Hmm, now that's interesting..... The Mail not putting it on the cover couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Breivik is basically a walking Hate Mail editorial, could it...?

I concur with what Suedehead said, it was blatantly obvious that it wasn't an AQ attack... For a start, when reports came that police took in Breivik alive instead of him detonating himself, that was really the first major clue.... ;) The Tabloids really really should have checked or been more cautious before printing it as fact, because they just made themselves look like even bigger fools than they already are.....

Yeah, Hitler was to Marxism what "Social Darwinism" was to the theory of evolution mate.... -_-

http://widgets.platform.emi.com/landing/04...48ab9d19e3.html Link to a pre-order site... But at £17.49 on Amazon, THEY can feck right off.....

Russia Today started off by saying "estimated 80 deaths", but then fell into line with the '84' figure....

I dont really think things like this can ever really be averted, you will always have terrorists and pathetic lunatics who are willing to kill people to make some kind of point... Also the fact that certain sections of the media have been feeding the hatred of people such as this with paranoia and misinformation about immigrants and muslims... It really is absolutely incredible to me that these idiots bang on about "Islam taking over Europe", where there is not ONE Western European country that has a practicing muslim population of more than about 5%.. According to the last census, only 1.5 million of the population of UK were practicing Muslims..... How on Earth could less than 5% of the population possibly install Sharia Law...? In Norway, the amount is around 2% (as of 2007) with 78% of the country being Lutheran.... These figures make the assumptions and claims of the Right Wing completely ludicrous.....

I dont remember really anyone using the word "estimated" when I was watching the news.... All the news stations, newspapers, etc, seemed to be parroting the same figures....

The day they signed the death warrant for the NHS Andrew Lansley has announced that, from next April, NHS services worth £1 billion will be opened up to competitive bids from the private sector. Source - Daily Telegraph You might think that historians will record last Tuesday as the day the Murdoch empire was brought to book by MPs. Yet I suspect that in years to come, they will realise the significance of that day, not for the phone-hacking scandal but for the health service. While the nation’s attention was focused on the most powerful man in the media attempting to dodge questions and cream pies, this was a good day to bury bad news. And the Department of Health duly obliged. Andrew Lansley explained that from April next year, eight NHS services worth £1 billion, including musculoskeletal services for back pain, wheelchair services for children and adult community psychological therapies, will be opened up to competitive bids from the private sector. This means that in these areas, the NHS will no longer exist. Sure, the logo will still be there, but the NHS will no longer be national, any more than British Telecom is. There is no doubt that this signals the first wave of privatising the NHS. Yet MPs of all persuasions continue to be deluded. In a letter that has been passed to me, Stephen Williams, Liberal Democrat MP for Bristol West, assures a worried constituent that the NHS Reform Bill will “improve the NHS and therefore definitely not lead to the privatisation of services”. Doubtless Mr Williams means this sincerely. But I wonder if he has actually read the Bill. I telephoned and asked him: no, he hadn’t. The problem is that the MPs who are voting on this assume that the Bill’s content reflects the Government’s White Paper on the NHS, published last summer. I have read both and it is clear to me that the White Paper bears little relation to the legislation that is being pushed through. The White Paper is a docile, fluffy, patient-focused document, with much talk of choice and empowerment. This is in stark contrast to the Bill, which almost exclusively focuses on opening up the NHS to private providers. The Bill is written in dense legal terminology, making any detailed analysis time-consuming and difficult. But anyone who does study it will find little more than a road map for destroying the NHS, turning it into a cash cow for the corporate sector. The focus is on transforming public sector provision into an entirely market-led system, throwing open every service to private providers. Previous pieces of legislation that existed to ensure the NHS remained in public ownership are weakened or removed entirely in the Bill. Even the role of Secretary of State is altered so that he is no longer responsible for the NHS. There are 15 clauses (ss125-131, 168-175) that will allow private companies to buy and asset-strip NHS facilities. Clause s12 specifically enables the privatisation of high-security psychiatric services. Does that sound as if the NHS, or the interests of patients, are being protected? The concessions made by Lansley after the “listening exercise” were initially heralded as an acceptable compromise but, in reality, little has changed. For example, “any willing provider”, a phrase taken from EU procurement directives, has been changed to “any qualified provider”. This type of amendment does not help protect the NHS. The competitive commissioning process it refers to remains unchanged. After Lansley’s announcement last Tuesday, the BMA Council said that the Government is misleading the public by repeatedly stating that there will be no privatisation of the NHS and is continuing its campaign for the Health Bill to be withdrawn. Yet MPs are defending the Bill without properly understanding it or even reading it. Cloak and dagger tactics are used to minimise any public outcry when key announcements are made. The health secretary and the Prime Minister assure us the NHS will not be privatised when the legislation they are pushing through explicitly suggests otherwise. The Bill enters the report stage and third reading on September 6 and 7. At the end of this, MPs will be voting on the future of your NHS. Is it safe in their hands? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Honestly, words absolutely FAIL me just now....... <_< <_<