Yeah but These are IN INVENTORY and if you call in the next 15 minutes SHIPPING IS FREE.

Reminds me of this:
http://videosift.com/video/Stark-Industries-Presents-the-BLU-108
(sales pitch starts at 0:51)

To a certain extent, but unfortunately a charismatic (or dictatorial) leadership, or even parents passing on their belief systems to their children, can create or enforce ideals that can shape society. Many people still adhere to religion because "that's the way it's always been", not because the religion actually fits their personal ethics...

In general, I do actually agree with you in regards to the concept that secularity tends to lead to enlightenment, but there are plenty of secular countries that are authoritarian/despotic (North Korea being a shining example), violent and considerably backwards compared to countries which have a high proportion of religious people and freedom. Unfortunately, enlightenment leads to arrogance as well.

The continual push by the media/politicians etc to classify Muslims as a homogenous whole smacks more of an attempt to play on xenophobia and racism than any factual evidence.

Particularly when the enlightened country making the most noise about it has "In God We Trust" printed on their currency. Compound that with provoking and polarising moderate Muslims by marginalising and insulting them? Enlightenment does not preclude gross stupidity.

A simple look at the US (secular mind you) shows stark differences between the north and the south, red states and blue states etc. You're proposing that 1.5 bn people (that would be ~5 times more people than the entire population of the US) spread across most countries in the world are somehow tightly aligned purely because they share a religion that is as varied as any other in the world?

And the mean truth? The arrogance and presumption of "enlightened neighbours" are part of the reasons why certain countries are as they are...

Iran is a classic example. The US (all enlightened and shit) engineers the coup that deposes a democratically elected Prime Minister hailed as a leading champion of secular democracy. And when the Shah was overthrown, it was by fundamentalists lead by Ayatollah Khomeini, ushering in an era of strict theocracy and an abiding hatred of the US.

Your last paragraph highlights the problem perfectly. We have two media reporters, deliberately or ignorantly, disseminating false information which would probably lead to discrimination against Muslims. How ethical is it to incite an entire country to hate over the actions of a tiny percentage of the whole? How ethical is it to ignore humanitarian disasters in countries which have no strategic or natural resource value (and places where no white people have been beheaded)?

And when presented with empirical truth, how ethical is it to refuse to accept it?

She still owns half the land. The military, police and intelligence services all swear their oaths to her above us. The higher courts belong to her along with the Judges & QC's. The Prime Minister has to meet her once a week, she can veto any law parliament passes (and to pass it must gain "royal ascent"), or even dissolve parliament itself. etc. etc.

But more than any of that it is a genuine fucking embarrassment to me that in the 21st century we still accept any member of our society declaring themselves our natural betters in law, or indeed the rest of us as being "subjects".

You are not a free citizen of the UK, you are a "Subject" of the crown in law. Even if this was pure symbolism (which I don't agree with anyway), what it symbolises is disgusting and backwards. (that could be the UK's tagline "disgusting and backwards" )

If you have a nation built upon a principle of Nepotism the end result should come as no surprise to anyone. The only good argument I've ever heard for keeping the monarchy is that due to the amount of land they own, paying their "wages" works out considerably cheaper than the rent they could charge the government......

...But if that's not a reason to strip them of their power AND rights to the land WE live on I don't know what is. They want to hold us to ransom? The mature response would be to give any such people a stark lesson about the collective consensual prerequisite of personal property. Not put a fucking crown on their heads and bow to them like the feckless goons we are .

Fuck the Queen, fuck her castles and fuck her family. The Corgi's I can turn a blind eye to, they seem quite friendly.....


"Struck a nerve Mr. Woo?"
Yes I fear you have! Please try not to take that as an attack on yourself however Mr. Flowers, you're not the one I'm being angsty at if you see what I mean.

But what if the 'holy spirit' tells me clearly that I don't need to believe in any supernatural insanity to be a good person (which is the most important, and often missed lesson of religion)? Or that my 'heavenly reward' is in life, in knowing I'm a decent person to others, no afterlife required?
It seems that should be just fine, according to some scripture (not that I care about or believe in scripture) and should be enough to get proselytizers to let me be, but it's not.

It depends on what you mean when you use the word good. I'll venture that you are using a relative standard of good, but that isn't the standard that God uses. Usually, when we call ourselves good it is in comparison to other people. You might think, I've never raped or murdered, and I am certainly no Adolf Hitler or Ted Bundy, so I am good by basis of comparison. Yet, what God calls good is moral perfection, and everything that falls short of that He calls evil. His standard is an absolute standard, not a relative one, and so our relative standard of good is not good enough.

When people call themselves good, generally, what they really mean is that they have good intentions. In our hearts we want to do right and think good things about people, yet the reality is usually starkly different. If you examine yourself in the light of the 10 commandments, even just four of them such as do not lie, do not steal, do not covet, do not take the Lords name is vain, you probably find them that you've broken them hundreds if not thousands of times in your life. Jesus took the standard even higher and said that if we hate anyone, we've murdered them in our hearts, and if we look at a woman with lust we have committed adultery with them in our hearts. If our lives were an open book and people could see not only what we've done but also what was going on in our hearts, would anyone call us good? I can say for myself it would be an open and shut case.

This is why we need a Savior; we will be judged for what we do in this life and our goodness isn't good enough. That is why Jesus came; to pay the price that we cannot pay so that we can be forgiven for our sins and have eternal life. Whether you care about the scripture, think about whether you would ever jump out of a plane without a parachute. That's exactly what you are prepared to do by entering into eternity without Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

It's got Maisie Williams, aka Arya Stark, seeing it for the first time. How could people not love it?

Even so, I was surprised to see it look this good, even in the only decent part of the entire country. I expected it to be more stark and Cuba-like, with the rest of the country being completely undeveloped or worse.

He's like the real life Tony Stark.

I believe you're thinking about it in reverse.

From season 1, a blonde (Lannister) mating with a black-haired (Baratheon) is expected to yield a black-haired child. (That's why Ned knew blonde Joffrey wasn't Robert's son.)

For this theory, black-haired Lyanna Stark supposedly made Jon Snow with blonde-haired Rhaegar Targaryen, so it would be expected that his hair would be black.

No?

Hey Lucky, I think this girl does some really watchable videos, explains things pretty well.

Video for the history of house Stark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIIzuqIRB2g&list=PLHZDkFt4F9fOL_cJCd_ySWaugLkjI2VHK

She also does videos for House Targaryen, Baratheon, and Lannister. Just scan the related videos on the right once Youtube is up.

Egads. Be aware that some people are stark raving nuts. And wil respond accordingly.

Also, I think you are misinterpreting the GRRM quote about killing perceived heroes of the series once they become popular.

First of all, the Red Viper and Ned stark were introduced and killed in the same book. Their deaths were planned all along and served the story. They didn't have a chance to become popular with the fans before they died. It only feels that way because you are watching a tv adapation of the books.

Secondly, the MOST POPULAR candidates for the heroes of the series are still alive as of book 5. There is one prevailing theory based on plenty of hints GRRM scattered throughout his books on who the real heroes of the story are, and so far the books have been consistent. Of course, that does not mean they will survive the series ending.

GRRM has specifically stated that he does not want the books to become like the TV series Lost, where the writers actively tried to outwit reader speculation. GRRM said he wanted to strike a balance between giving the readers what they want, and maintaining some element of surprise.

So in summary, I don't think GRRM is killing characters unfairly just because they're popular. In retrospect, I like the series even more because so few books leave such a lasting impact on me.

I expect it'll be the same way Ned Stark did.

Aidan Gillen (Little Finger) was also very good in The Wire. Weird seeing Michelle Fairley (Catelyn Stark) in 24 now ...

It's worth keeping in mind that when you slaughter an animal for food, the process is often :
a) Hit it in the head
b) While it's dazed hang it by its hind legs
c) Cut its throat, and let it bleed out *alive* (so that the heart pumps out the blood, so the meat doesn't taste like liver.)

During which the animal will come-to, and stare at you, and you can read its expression pretty clearly. As a creature that's only ever been fed by you, and lived seemingly among you, the betrayal is rather stark.
I say this from life experience, not anecdotes read on the interweb.
(I'm not a vegan. However, if I'm not gonna finish my meal, I make sure to at least finish the meat.)

TBH, not enough people are taught about life and death.
If I had my way, every child would have to slaughter at least one animal and eat it (seeing as hundreds will be slaughtered over their life time just to feed them personally - it's a business they're already personally involved in. So they should have the respect to look their food in the face at least once.).

Then they can make an informed decision about their food.
And maybe even about things like war, or careless driving, etc. Seems like everyone is a tough guy, and everything is "all fine, don't worry"... so long as death is just 'something actors pretend with on TV'.

-scheherazade