Walsingham

River, you give an interesting example of an obvious phenomenon. I was quite surprised that you didn't choose one of the many examples we have in the UK, where state provision is stronger. But anyway... There are three reasons why i'm not bothered by your example: 1 - I don't support childcare for the parents. I support it for the kids. Or, more accurately still, I support it for me. I believe that bloody awful childhoods lead to poor social skills and poor mental powers. Given that I get tooth-spittingly furious when anyone talks in a film theatre, I need to combat this tendency whenever possible. 2 - Despite that chap's actions being possible, how many people do it? Very few. 3 - At least the oversexed fethwit didn't murder anyone.

Yes, and LoF quietly slides past the question of who assigns these rewards. The Party. Perhaps just once he'd care to comment on the infallibility of The Party.

I'm biased, but generally my impression is that you'll find terrorists do have ****-for-brains. If you examine the supporting logic you tend to wind up scratching your head in bemused wonderment. But it sells, there's no doubt about that. I have a Che Guevara t-shirt that everyone thinks is awesome. It has shiny stitched on lettering.

Ouch. Well, then I guess that after this whole exchange, we haven't progressed much. We don't even have a common ground on basic elements of the topic such as "propaganda" and "hate". I mean, I hate our current prez, but for a wide variety of reasons, I don't think I'd pull the trigger - even assuming I had the balls to do so. Maybe you just have sensitive hands? I think you may be being overly pessimistic. We've been attempting to tackle one another's points without deliberate evasion. I'd say that was a win on its own. Well, since you brought it up, where do I begin? Two teenagers arrested in advance of plot to bomb school Man arrested in advance for plot to 'destroy foreigners' School boy arrested for plotting terrror in the name of Islam.

I'm just saying i actually had that dream. Almost precisely as pictured, except the corporate thug was fatter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/61...-in-London.html Research proves the takeover of the pub industry by a cartel has driven up beer prices by up to 80p a pint. And what's been done about it? **** all.

I parry!

Strange. he must have drunk too much tea or something.

I had the exact same problem with teh space bar. I had to pry it up and push the metal spring back into place. So yeah, I agree. But since I only bought it because of the pretty lights I didn't care. My life is so empty right now.

An agent provocateur? Interesting...

Hi Steve! Surprised it's taken you this long to chip in.

I look forward to your reply. If i may add a point which I forgot: the BBC. Having a state owned media is clearly not free-capitalist, and could be attacked on principle. However, the reality is that the BBC provide largely bias free programming (media types are generally left-liberal since they don't do real work but there's nothing you can do about that any more than you could make the Army left-liberal). The BBc also, and this is my main point, set a benchmark of excellence which forces the free market media to work bloody hard to keep up. they constantly complain about it, but they're better for it, IMO. Also, I missed a bit. You're correct that 5% return on any standard investment is not excessive, although it is pretty good. I was recently told that construction projects are lucky to make 2%.

Hah ha! Nice one with the video games point. I'll have to consider it. But rather than deny you the chance to trip me up I'll say that my first reaction is that in cases where video games have been involved they're just part of the propaganda mix. Like ball-bearings in the suicide vest. Incidentally, you really ought to read more about these trials. You clearly find the issues at stake interesting.

Incidentally has anyone established whose alt LoF is?

I find stupidity a lot less sexy than deformity. Although that could be self-reinforcing, because my main selling point isn't my looks. Hence I tend to assume I won't be able to pull someone who's a bimbo.

Gfted1: You should be grateful you're not responsible. You wouldn't believe the mess. ~ Groceries - basic food is available in most developed nations for so little money that it isn't necessary to have a government granary or anything like that. It's generally taken care of by government financial assistance. Also, (and I admit I'm not any sort of economist) food is a growth system. When it generates wealth it improves itself. I don't see insurance adding value to the economy. It's parasitic, if broadly beneficial. Coverage - I don't see it as a problem that people who can afford insurance benefit from UHC. That's one of the selling points. I could afford private insurance, but by contributing a smaller amount through tax I get anything I need. A totally comprehensive cover, without quibbling. If I got a pig stuck in my lung I'd just get treated. But perhaps I've misunderstood your point? Expense - I don't have time to hunt up a source we could both reasonably accept as non-partisan on expense. So I consider it honourable to ring-fence the point until one of us does. It's just nice to have established a clear decision point. If it turns out to be more expensive then I lose an important line of argument, but presumably if the inverse were true you'd shift as well. However, your point about defence spending is not a happy one for you. According to SIPRI you chaps spend only 4% GDP on defence. The UK spends 2.4%. Conversely with healthcare (and I'm not very happy with the source, but I can't find anything better): The point being that while a 2% difference in defence spending produced the most incredible defence machine the world has ever seen, a 7% difference in healthcare produces at best a comparable service. Caring & Socialism You make a good point about the ways we care. To continue your point I absolutely refuse to give money to third world charities. It's not because I don't care. It's because after my own experiences, and knowing several charity management types I believe that until security and corruption are addressed then it's money thrown away. My point was more targetted at the people who say that helping poor people is in fact hurting them. I understand the logic, I just think it's balls. It's not the same as with developing nations. If some guy has a torn ligament he can't freaking work. In fact I'd suggest that healthcare is the security of the individual 'state'. BTW: I am a jerk.

Fair do's, Aristes. but i notice you don't clarify which side of the argument you're addressing. However, it is not my intention to accuse anyone so far of being ignorant. If I am indulging in a bit of incomprehending fury it's because I just don't see the counter-argument being put in a way I can fathom. - UHC means communist takeover. Clearly I don't get this - UHC is expensive. I'm not saying it's cheap cheap. But I also don't see it being 18% of our sodding GDP either, and most importantly it works. - UHC can't be run by the US government. The US govt cares for military personnel. End of argument. - UHC is immoral. This I understand least of all. I know there's a variety of moral systems out there, but I thought you buggers were Christians. The way I was raised that means helping the needy. - UHC is practically unneccessary. As a citizen and as an employer I recognise that disease doesn't give a toss about insurance. The most effective health schemes are those which tackle everyone at once. Now, explain to me in words as short as possible what the **** you lunatics are banging on about? Please.

I like the way they've completely eschewed subtlety and just had a blonde bird with her norks on display.

They wouldn't BE dice, fethnuts. They'd take the place of dice.

I managed to neatly answer my internal debate over when I was fit enough to stop using the step machine and go back to running. I went on it for too long, it overheated and appears to have melted.

Hold on, does this make you a fascist pig?

um... you REALLY don't pay much attention to terror trials, do you? I'm genuinely smiling because if you had you'd have seen how few extremist terrorists come from genuinely impoverished backgrounds. It's not a requirement at all. If you really want a committed extremist you grab some middle-class inadequate and pump him full of confusing philosophy and pseudo-science.

Think yourself lucky. It's not been a clean word in my vocabulary since I was ...well... spotty.