Aussie forces held the southern line till the Mericuns could get their new carrier fleets up and running.

Moral of the story: If your gonna go after Australia, dont get bogged down in a drawn-out stalemate...cause our friends will mess you up

*beg bag bog

OK...where to start?
This is not a rally, it's a mud bog.
Second, this video is years old, if not a decade.
Third, no one was hurt, but it was a close call. His 30 cousins got him out.

*beg *bag *bog

That's rubbish parenting, if all she can do is swear to get her point across then i'm not surprised they're leaving floaters in the bog. On the other hand, it was funny as hell.

Right again, Mr. Chomsky. Then after the rubes have been softened up, enter the smarmy, two-faced Barack Obama, whose plan to save us from global warming is a such a hack job that it's hardly worth the industry shills (like the ones taking up so much space commenting here) to bother with. Like his gift to the insurance industry -- America's sad excuse for "universal health care" -- Obama's environmental "program" is just another load of pretty B.S. thrown up to cover his real agenda, which in this case is to hand over the keys to America's energy industry to people like Dick Cheney, whose hands might as well be guiding the marionette strings coming out of his back. The "president" really doesn't have a choice about pushing natural gas; he sold out to the oiligarchs while still a do-nothing Senator. But that doesn't mean the few of us who are awake and aware shouldn't scream at him about it and do everything in our dwindling power to make him and the rest of the gasoholic cabal wish they'd never been born. Indeed, part of what the moribund U.S. environmental movement needs -- and in particular the fractured and chronically outclassed anti-fracking movement -- is a significantly angrier soundtrack, not bogged down with insipid musical baggage from old, hippy-dippy environmental campaigns. Pete Seeger and his sweet, smiling ilk don't cut through all the background noise any more. With that in mind, here's a new American anthem guaranteed to stir the soul of any red-blooded environmentalist, as well as lure a few emotionally sensitive people over from the dark side. Feel free to use it. Scream your anger! soundcloud.com/biff-thuringer/to-america

Strange video. I left Norton for McAfee when Norton became a bloated mess that took over your whole computer, then left McAfee for NOD32 for the same reason. Several AV's later (AVG, F-Secure, Kaspersky), I'm using Avira. So far... works well, low memory footprint, don't need to disable it for anything to work correctly, doesn't bog the system down at all. If Avira wants to lose me as a customer, all they have to do is start pushing a "security suite", which they offer, but I'm not interested. It probably goes back to my DOS days, but I dislike giving control of my computer to third-party software. And you can suck your "cloud". No thank you.

@JustSaying

Looks like I have some time on my hands....
Blergh, get that off me!
Look, Shiny, that post was not meant for you in the first place. It was *about* you, not *for* you.

I'm not sure how you could say that. It was both about me and for me. You obviously wanted me to read it ("@"shinyblurry), and you asked me a direct question at the bottom of it.

What I was trying to say, to tell others, was that you already made up your mind. And then you put it in a box, put that box in a safe, put that safe in a big ass wooden crate, poured concrete over it and threw it into the deepest pit of the ocean. Unless somebody's got a big red "S" on their shirt, the Hammer rule applies: Can't touch this!

Yes, I've made up my mind about God, and so would you, or anyone, if you were to receive personal revelation that He exists. You seem to think that isn't possible, but have you considered that it is impossible for you to know that? Why is it a virtue to you that one cannot come to any definite conclusions about truth? Is it an intellectually superior position to not know anything for certain?

You and me both know very much that my post is actually easy to reply to and contains a very definite core message concerning you and I know why you won't reply to it. Your way of arguing, from what I've seen, consists of very well known (at least to me) tactics like qouting small excerpts and single sentences, bogging down the discussion in details until your opponents grows tired and gives up. I used to do this all the time.

You asserted many things in your post which would require detailed refutations and it would be fairly time consuming to respond to all of it. That is why I asked you to narrow the field. I also don't have any tactics. I attempt to engage in an intellectually honest discussion and I wouldn't bother writing if it was for the purpose of winning an argument. I honestly don't care about winning the argument; I only hope to share something of value.

I also know that what I wrote about you (baseless assumption or not) isn't very nice. I realise how offensive it must be to you but I assure you, my intention is not to hurt your feelings, religious or otherwise. I may disagree greatly but I am not here to piss on your leg. I apologize for that even if I will continue to stand by my point.

That's okay; it's nothing I haven't heard before. I understand that posting on a website populated by atheists people are going to unload on me.

Actually your response to my rather innocent question regarding musical taste proves it. "I don't listen to secular music anymore" is what you wrote. You divide music into secular and non-secular. That's your worldview right there. Non-secular vs. secular.
Not listening to secular music means you don't listen to The Beatles, John Williams, Jimi Hendrix, The Prodigy, Beastie Boys, Ennio Morricone, Queen, Cypress Hill, Deep Purple or Jesper Kyd. All great musicians. It may even include people like Mozart or Beethoven. Why? Because it's not religious enough?
Your worldview is seperates everything into two categories: secular and non-secular.
I pity you for that. You miss out on so many wonderful things.

I haven't missed out on them; I wasn't always a Christian. I grew up in a secular home without religion and was saved later in life. I've tried what the world has to offer and I've rejected it. Or as the scripture explains, I am in the world but not of it. Jesus said you are either for Him or against Him; he who does not gather with Him, scatters abroad.

Having said that, I must also tell you this: I am glad you're here.
There is this discussion going on in this thread about the rightness of the ignore function. I see no problem with that. @shinyblurry certainly posts many things that aren't popular here but as far as I can tell he always stays civil and quite cool, given the nature of responses he gets. I understand why some people don't want to discuss anything with him. I advise against discussing certain topics altogether, this is why I posted in this thread at all, however I must say I never saw him behaving in troublesome ways.
Assuming that this site is a place for open discussion about pretty much any topic, I think shiny's input has its place here. Putting him on ignore is not an act of ignorance or cowardice or however you want to characterise it, it is simply unwillingness to to argue with him. It is the realisation that this crate of his ist way beyond our reach, our touch.
I don't like people to tell me what I want to hear, I want people to tell me what they think. I belive shiny does.

Thanks, I appreciate that. If people want to ignore me that is their choice, but this isn't anything new. The talk of banning and ignoring me started almost immediately after I arrived here. While this site is based on democratic ideals, some people only want that in a limited sense. By that I mean that some want to be free, for instance, to post anti-christian videos and express anti-christian opinions yet they are bitterly opposed to anyone posting about the contrary.

Looks like I have some time on my hands....
Blergh, get that off me!
Look, Shiny, that post was not meant for you in the first place. It was *about* you, not *for* you. What I was trying to say, to tell others, was that you already made up your mind. And then you put it in a box, put that box in a safe, put that safe in a big ass wooden crate, poured concrete over it and threw it into the deepest pit of the ocean. Unless somebody's got a big red "S" on their shirt, the Hammer rule applies: Can't touch this!
You and me both know very much that my post is actually easy to reply to and contains a very definite core message concerning you and I know why you won't reply to it. Your way of arguing, from what I've seen, consists of very well known (at least to me) tactics like qouting small excerpts and single sentences, bogging down the discussion in details until your opponents grows tired and gives up. I used to do this all the time.
I also know that what I wrote about you (baseless assumption or not) isn't very nice. I realise how offensive it must be to you but I assure you, my intention is not to hurt your feelings, religious or otherwise. I may disagree greatly but I am not here to piss on your leg. I apologize for that even if I will continue to stand by my point.
Actually your response to my rather innocent question regarding musical taste proves it. "I don't listen to secular music anymore" is what you wrote. You divide music into secular and non-secular. That's your worldview right there. Non-secular vs. secular.
Not listening to secular music means you don't listen to The Beatles, John Williams, Jimi Hendrix, The Prodigy, Beastie Boys, Ennio Morricone, Queen, Cypress Hill, Deep Purple or Jesper Kyd. All great musicians. It may even include people like Mozart or Beethoven. Why? Because it's not religious enough?
Your worldview is seperates everything into two categories: secular and non-secular.
I pity you for that. You miss out on so many wonderful things.
Having said that, I must also tell you this: I am glad you're here.
There is this discussion going on in this thread about the rightness of the ignore function. I see no problem with that. @shinyblurry certainly posts many things that aren't popular here but as far as I can tell he always stays civil and quite cool, given the nature of responses he gets. I understand why some people don't want to discuss anything with him. I advise against discussing certain topics altogether, this is why I posted in this thread at all, however I must say I never saw him behaving in troublesome ways.
Assuming that this site is a place for open discussion about pretty much any topic, I think shiny's input has its place here. Putting him on ignore is not an act of ignorance or cowardice or however you want to characterise it, it is simply unwillingness to to argue with him. It is the realisation that this crate of his ist way beyond our reach, our touch.
I don't like people to tell me what I want to hear, I want people to tell me what they think. I belive shiny does.

@00Scud00 if businesses collude to keep prices high, their enemy are other businesses not profiting from that collusion. Getting into the fold cuts into their profits.

Big businesses use government to regulate the market and skew costs in their favor, raising barriers of entry to competitors.

If government is removed from the picture, yes, it's one less person to bribe. It also removes all those barriers, and all unfair advantages big businesses currently enjoy.

With free markets, as with most freedoms, it's not all unicorns and rainbows, quite the opposite. There will be plenty of abuse and unfairness to go around. However, being free from a mountain of laws and bureaucracy, without anyone to come crying to, begging authority to right all wrongs, society will be more flexible, creative, responsible, and inclined to solve problems on its own. People are better at solving problems than bureaucrats, and they'll more likely do so if they have to do it themselves.

It's like the internet. I believe most problems on the internet today can be solved technologically. Is that magical thinking? I don't think so.

Sure, there's a role for a few legal rules, but they should always be kept to a minimum. Let people figure things out creatively, without resorting to violence. Add too many laws to the internet, and it'll be bogged down. People will try less to come up with creative solutions, and resort more to petitioning their representatives.

I resent the insinuation that I use free market as a mantra. I'm trying to clear its name. It currently enjoys a terrible and undeserved reputation.

@shatterdrose the 1% pushed government "aside"... what does that even mean? Are you fantasizing that the economy has been largely unregulated all this time, and that's why the 1% get their way?

Wouldn't it make more sense for you to make the connection that our government is FREAKISHLY HUGE and indebted, and that the terrible injustices in our economy result from massive government intervention in almost every aspect of it, bogging it down, wasting precious resources, destroying the value of our money, promoting wealth inequality... and not the other way around?

People don't hate the 1% just because they're rich, but because they're getting rich unfairly, with the help of government. *Government* is a big part of that equation.

You are so mistaken about the concepts you're trying to explain to me, it's hilarious!

Communism is not about means of production being owned by the state, the utopian concept itself is about a stateless society that is somehow reached through Socialism (Communism doesn't exist outside of theory, so don't worry your pretty little head about it). In Socialism, the State owns the means of production, it owns almost everything, mostly because the State doesn't recognize private property. You can say it "belongs to the people" all you want, but without private property, it belongs to whoever has a say into what should happen with it, i.e., the State. Democracy hasn't the faintest connection with any of this, because voting doesn't make you part of government.

Kuwait is a tiny country, and didn't have nearly the military that Iraq had because of US support of Iraq. Do you remember until he attacked Kuwait he was a big Ally, we loved him and supported him right through his greatest atrocities.

The Gulf War was just us rolling over them, it wasn't even a fight it was us flexing our muscles and a good sign to other countries not to step out of line. We then allowed Saddam to stay in power by letting him crush the resistance against him which was serious and would've most likely overthrown him. We imposed sanctions that were in the words of Dennis Halliday "Genocidal." And which when asked if killing 500,000 Iraqi children was ok Madeline Albright said "We think the price is worth it."

Iran isn't like Iraq at all, either before the Gulf War or Before the Iraq War. It's got a much more powerful and technological military. Also the US is simply not as powerful as it was. Remember the Gulf War was just after the Wall Fell, we were the worlds only super power. The Iraq War was against a basically helpless nation (even Kuwait wasn't afraid of them anymore), and we were stuck there for years, it was ridiculous how we fucked it up so amazingly. Russia in Chechnya is pissing themselves over how we fucked it up so badly. If David Petraeus could do what Putin did, he's probably be considered the greatest military man the US had ever seen.

I'm sorry but we cannot invade Iran like we did Iraq, simply because the world is changing too quickly. It's not going to happen, and if it does, you'll see a real uprising in the US. The OWS thing has more sympathy than people think, it's just bubbling under the surface. If it's given a huge cause the troops will have to be called back to the US to control the population.

Also contrary to popular belief Wars don't make money, they cost money. Preparing for War makes money, the Military Industrial complex wants to always be spending money Preparing for War and not having to fight one that would take significant resources, like getting bogged down in Iran.

I'm sorry but it's just nothing like the same thing going on. I don't think we're going to be invading Iran on the ground ever do to the change in the power system and the enemy.

One problem...the US doesn't want to launch a war against Iran. They just don't it doesn't meet the modern criteria for a war because they're not helpless like Iraq or Afghanistan. Israel will do exactly what the US tells it to do, the US is the mob boss and Israel always follows it's orders because when they don't they get hammered.

Iran has an army, they have the ability to bog us down for a LONG time, they withstood 10 years of war against an American funded Iraq. So the very premise that he's supposing that the US wants a war, they don't.

Seriously watch a Chomsky talk about Iran.

nope, this is freakin hilarious, she's a comedic genius. It's made even better by the fact that the piano playing is so bog standard.

*edit* OK turns out the piano was added after as a joke, there's a version of this with the star spangled banner, with Adele etc... In reality she sang this acapella. I'm kind of disappointed now.. but I have to admit I did laugh.

*bog