Walsingham

All states are supported by force, implicit or explicit. That is what a state is, that is how a state works, on a fundamental level. I wish it wasn't so, but wishing doesn't make it so. I have never maintained otherwise. What I DO maintain is that the degree of force is directly proportional to the divergence of the state's order from human norms. I maintain that communism is extremely unnatural and its inception and sustenance is only possible through extreme violence. I have pointed out the extreme violence which went into the creation of communist Russia and communist China. I have also pointed out that the reform of the system of state violence correlates perfectly with the collapse of European communism and its empire of socialist 'brothers'. The two principle remaining communist states - Cuba and North korea - both practice extreme political repression. I am still laughing about the notion that academics need not reference material because it's provenance should be obvious. EDIT: In my mirth, I forgot about Vietnam.

Anyone care to make on eof how Europeans see America?

Simply pointing at the united states proves nothing about communism. They could chase citizens through the streets on dinosaur back. It wouldn't change the history of the KGB, the Stasi, or whatever the Chinese secret police were called.

Control their hearbeat? Can you just say "Heart please stop!"? I once saw a pair of dark skinned twins, who stopped me breathing. Pictures please Sorry. They were students of mine back when I was a young and vastly stupid student teacher. I felt it was immoral and unethical to date my own students. Of course now I'm older and realise that immorality accumulates without you realising anyway, I'd say I should have gone for it. Although in my defence I wasn't being monkish so far as other young ladies were concerned. By god, though, I've never seen anything like it since.

ROFLMAO. That is without a shadow of a doubt the single funniest argument I have EVER heard. "If you don't recognise my source then you are insufficiently expert". You literally couldn't make it up. So, leaving aside our obvious inferiority, may I ask who the hell conducted the counter-revolutions throughout the Communist bloc, and why such enormous police presences are required in the few remaining communist countries?

Americans.. FFS, Junai, can you give the anti-American racism a rest for five minutes? It's a New Zealand article. What makes you think they're American?

Control their hearbeat? Can you just say "Heart please stop!"? I once saw a pair of dark skinned twins, who stopped me breathing.

The Georgian government is charging an undisclosed number of individuals with criminal conduct in connection with a thwarted attempt to sell highly enriched uranium on the black market in Tbilisi. Zaal Lomtadze, head of the Georgian Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources

Thanks for explaining. I have a nutty idea: remove all the party affiliation notes from the ballot paper. That would confuse **** out of all the lazy ****s who can't be arsed to even know one thing about the party they think should run the country.

Only if the conservatives don't win. He'll stick around for a hung parliament. What else is he to do? Grow a spine? Get some sort of gel to rub into his clawlike hands so they release his hold on power? He's gone bloody mental! I see what you mean Krez, and have to agree. Offensive action gets my vote before some sort of electric Maginot line. The only problem with that is that people get even more shirty if you start spying on them.

You know what would be really awesome? If a freak gust of wind blew Noah's ark from it's resting place on mount Ararat, whistled it through the air, and landed it on their heads. Then they got struck by lightning.

Um... that article you linked to says quite clearly that the chaps who claim storage won't work are contradicted by "many others". I haven't read the source piece, but it's hardly conclusive.

Blah blah blah blah. I meant to put "comparatively" microscopic, but it should have been obvious based on context. Then again, I shouldn't have expected intellectual honesty from the guy who tried to argue that the Holodomor was an intentional genocide. "War is hell." LOL. I am content to be judged by my peers on my intellectual honesty. The opinion of indigent socipaths are of little concern. I note you still refuse to comment on my rebuttal of your claim that people love to be communist.

I say we kidnap him and hook him up to a generator.

Would you mind explaining that again? I'm badly hungover.

Again, you are best condemned in your own words. 22,000 soldiers being murdered is not 'microscopic'. But it does illustrate your swivel-eyed fundamentalism that you regard that number as microscopic. To put it another way the only reason the famine crimes of the Empire are important (which you keep mentioning) is because the victims are made up of lots of those 'microscopic' quantities. The point being that you don't give a toss about actual people. You just want an excuse to put on some high leather boots, and start pumping bullets into anyone who doesn't do exactly as you say. Sod compassion. The revolution for you is just high times and 'revenge'. Incidentally, I notice as usual you couldn't be bothered to address my counterpoint t o your claim that communism can be maintained by peace and love despite the fact that any time mass terrifying violence isn't applied the actual people benefiting from communism flee as fast as humanly possible.

DATING FAIL.

I don't wish to be rude, given that I have a hangover, but: 1. I wasn't aware that paedophiles could be identified from their faces. 2. It seems perfectly logical to me that Australia needs a multiple system solution to get everyone online in a country which varies from arable grassland to high density urban, to pure desert. 3. I don't think that calls to automatically censor things like child pronography are obviously misguided. The danger to civil liberties must be borne against the danger to children. It's no use simply flapping about it. We accept, for example, that the right to roam be curtailed in areas which are dangerous to the public and can forcible remove people from those areas. For example railway lines.

You mean you are going to make them vomit themselves unconscious by showing them your warty posterior? Good plan. I'd better buy some sort of large magnifying lense.

All sensible points, although I disagree. 1. In spite of the uunelected House of Lords being theoretically undemocratic, it was the Lords who fought tooth and nail to try and prevent detention without trial, and who usually pose the most probing questions on security and defence issues. Moreover, the proceedings in that house could not be more sane and reasonable. I urge you to watch it some time on television. I have no doubt that they behave this way because they are acutely conscious of their precarious status, but the fact is it still works. 2. Having both systems running in two separate houses sounds nice. But we seem to be unable to recruit sufficient quality MPs as it is. Having a second house, full of even worse individuals hardly bears thinking about. 3. A small group may well be able to form a party and get into power under prop rep, but I suggest it militates against ordinary people standing up for their actual community. People can actually run for MP and get votes by walking around, meeting people face to face with a limited budget. 4. Instead it would lead to parties like the BNP getting seats in the Commons by tapping into fringe views, rather than strong mainstream views held locally. Under the current system there's almost zero chance of them ever getting an MP. 5. The current system is extremely stable. We've not come close to civil war (excluding N Ireland) in 400 years! I would argue that it does so precisely because it returns MPs who have local roots, and tends to turn out governments with powerful enough majorities to get things done.

I am quite prepared to be corrected. However, in my defence the studies were looking at the UK, not the whole planet. We have a small landmass, irregular overcast weather, and fethloads of people.

The day he got brought back in by Brown was the day it should have been apparent that Brown will do absolutely anything at all to stay clutching power. And I say that having voted for the S.O.B. There are two deal breakers for me voting LibDem. Firstly their position on defence can be most charitably described as 'committed pacifist' or - from my philosphical standpoint - stark raving mad. They are fixated on a nuclear disarmament schtick from 1993 that by disarming we can somehow exert moral authority to disarm people like Iran and N Korea. They have also stated that they want an immediate return of troops from Afghanistan, and regard CURRENT operations as the 'end phase'. Which is just illogical, given the way that the dynamic at the moment is very much in flux. It's pure irresponsible pandering. In both cases they might just as well put their faith in a cupful of magic beans. The second deal breaker is that they are insisting on a shift to proportional representation. There are many arguments against this, but the one most likely to sway the average person is that it takes away our ability to vote for an actual person. MPs become inescapably party machines, rather than only being party machines when they lack any moral or intellectual foundation. They argue, reasonably enough that they get a big percentage of the vote yet few MPs and say this isn't fair. I say it's not unfair. Any more than it's unfair that only one party gets to form government. Each MP is voted in in turn. If only a handful of LibDem MPs are liked by voters then buck up, don't try to fudge the rules! I have very deep misgivings with all parties, but it's a choice between a morally and intellectually bankrupt group, a morally 'sound'*, but intellectualy dwarvish group, and a bunch of morally unsound but intellectually accomplished group. *If by morally sound you mean it sounds good at dinner parties.

Well he bloody well bothers me. Shiny faced commissar wannabe. Obyknven's just some fairly standard russian girl.

Yeah that would shoot his credibility right in the foot wouldn't it. Personally, I would have more respect for such an individual. Becoming an Eagle scout is a HUGE achievement and should be looked upon with pride, not derision. Come on Gfted. I know you ahve actual experience. But can you honestly see a bunch of squaddies treating a bloke who got promoted for boyscout membership with anything other than uproarious derision? I mean, possibly if we were living in some sci fi utopia. But we're at war! Anyway, it's probably off topic. In a similar appeal to common sense, I don't see the problem with the Boy Scouts. They're hardly the KKK. I don't agree with their rather silly anti-homosexual stance, since what they really object to is paedophiles, and that's illegal anyway. But they keep kids out of trouble. It's a valuable, if naff service.

Ah, but the French have a functional political class. Whereas ours docilely accept a corrupt goon like Peter Mandelson back into politics despite being discredited multiple times. Th eman should be fired out of a cannon, not made Minister of Whatever the **** he Feels Like. Preferably into George Galloway.