Walsingham

I think the fish flavour may be the taste of original sin. I could digress further on this point, but I suspect I would get modded. Th ecarrot cake turned out grand in the end. 1/3rd carrot, 1/3rd flour, 1/6th margarine, 1/6th banana. Molasses, caster sugar, cinnamon and nutmeg to taste. Could've really used icing, but it's perfectly fine as it is.

How could we not? Although I for one don't know. EDIT: OK, that didn't make and goddamn sense. I'll try again. I don't know, because I never watched it. But a lot of people seem to. I only liked his shirts.

"Oh, Marx, Marx..." Engels moaned, reclining back in his chair. "Don't stop." Smiling up at Engels, Marx pulled his head back and said, "one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity." That is without doubt the most revolting concoction you've ever foisted on us. Although I admit it made me laugh.

The thing which bothers me is that there seems to be this massive consensus, yet a disturbing lack of understanding. I mean I read a fair bit about it, and I still don't know which way to decide. Yet I've been shouted at for doubting AGW. That's just not healthy. The other problem I have is that if AGW really is as fething dangerous as people say, then that would place it above and beyond any reason for going to war I've ever seen. So I kind of hope it isn't for that reason alone.

I'd like to thank Enoch for making an equally magnificent contribution by being level-headed. I can understand Gfted1's point, as I said previously, if it's about paying in more than you get back. But I really think you need to look at the wider picture. This isn't some commie hippy conspiracy. Looking at context and measuring wider implications is what huge corporations do to stay succesful and ignore at their peril. Ask any MBA [i don't have an MBA, I'm just saying]. As I understand it there are three benefits to Gfted1 as a contributor. 1. As an employer he can get coverage cheaply for his low end labourers without worrying they will become incapable by routine scrapes. I know this would bother me. 2. In the context of the overall economy having more people able to work and not going bankrupt is good 3. If he develops a long term condition such as angina - as is likely if I carry on annoying him - then he will be able to get coverage

Marxist fan fiction?

True. It's very hard to go wrong for two quid. One other thing I like is that the authors have written a spoiler free hints guide. Which means when you inevitably get stuck you don't have to cheat. In both my instances it was because I simply didn't realise a specific action was possible in the game.

I thought this was interesting because it's the only time I've ever read a sensible comment on an article. Although needelss to say it was only tangentially on warming. The author was quoted simply as 'Dave'.

X-Com Apocalypse. For turn based squad level combat. Actually, now I think about it they should make the next Modern Warfare game as an X-Com.

It took me a moment to work out why I found this idea so amusing. How about I pay other gamers so MY girlfriend can talk to them while I am gaming? Because that's usually the problem.

Wait, how is a chocolate chip cinnamon fish flavoured muffin going to be good?

I know this will make Sand all fuzzy, but I have to agree. Has there EVER been a US congressional move without backhanders? Gfted1, you're a smart fellah and however strongly we both feel about this, you must recognise that point is awfully weak. I'm surprised you fielded it.

I think Sand is right. This is spamming a completely other thread, chaps. It's not as if we don't have a thread on healthcare. And speaking of being on topic, I really am getting sick to the back teeth with all this unsubstantiated balls about 9/11 being a CIA plot etc etc. BIG PLANE HIT BUILDING, BUILDING FALL DOWN. Does that make it any simpler? FFS, how do you halfwits react when you trip over?

Champagne communism is more fun. Hold on. You can hardly claim that sitting comfortably at home and arguing blindly with us online isn't hardship in the style of the great union heroes of yesteryear.

I think part of our disjunction is that I suggest Orogun believes behaving yourself is a neutral state, which one exists in by default. I apologise if I presume too much, but it is certainly the view of others. This is important, because I believe conversely that behaving is an acquired skill married to a correct temperament. You need to be TRAINED to do things like cook, clean, interact with authority etc. Or at least I certainly did. I recall the mess I made of my first years at public school. BUt those same skills have made it far easier for me ever since. As I say, I think this is important, because if some poor chap comes from a broken home with no tradition of engagement then how the hell is he to improve? He may hav e no particular emotional problem with authority but not know the language for any encounter but a hostile one.

Absolutely. He beats seven shades out of all sorts of people. The affair of the solitary cyclist springs immediately to mind with no effort.

I agree with hurlshot. Abject failure doesn't invalidate the attempt. Otherwise I should certainly still be a virgin.

Later I shall be attempting to cook carrot cake.

How will I participate in the upcoming socialist revolution in the United States if I'm in Cuba? Think before you post. You should at least spend some time in Cuba. You could get training, like the WUO.

You're saying that Ahmedinejad is elected under the same circumstances as Tony Blair was? Fine. Fine.

Th real question is whether I trust a bunch of minimum wage civvies to maintain a scramjet.

Slightly spicy spaghetti marinara. Just octopus. Plenty of garlic.

What we need is you Brits to reform your defamation laws. If the British courts can punish the publisher of anything controversial that happens to wash up on their shores, speech rights around the world are chilled. I agree wholeheartedly.

Well, this thread is growing apace. I hope someone has time to read my responses below. I've tried to distill out general themes. 1. The system will be mismanaged I think this is probably the best counterargument. The US govt. does arse some things royally. My counter is the military. Your military is fething awesome in almost every sense and particularly veteran care (to the best of my knowledge although I concede there are other forumites with better background on this point). However, if I am incorrect in my apprehension and the US govt cannot do anything right then I put it to you that you need to FIX THIS IMMEDIATELY. 2. The system won't tackle actual costs My instinct tells me that this will be the crucial factor. Without controlling the means of supply, rather than just setting up hospitals/medics, the govt. is setting themselves up to be fleeced 3. People will get stuff they don't deserve I still find this the most asinine objection. The cretinous caveman understood that working with other cavemen to bring down a mammoth would result in an unfair share of spoils, but nevertheless meant he got a good deal. If going public health costs you less as both a private consumer and as an employer/purchaser then WTF? You get cheaper healthcare AND get to help other people. Where's the big deal? Don't even get me started on this point as a Christian.

Settle down, you pervs.