One of Jamie Bulgers killers has since been sent back to prison for being busted with a load of child porn...

The story of Jamie Bulger is fucking horrifying. Those two little cunts will live to a ripe old age on taxpayer money. And Jamie Bulger is in a hole in the ground, his short life brought to a slow, humiliating and agonising end.

When i try to imagine the terror that he must have been going through, i think i could tear these 2 fuckers apart with my bare hands.

He was crying his eyes out for help all the way... fuck me i hope there is a god sometimes, that kid deserved more.

I got all of that from looking at the screen cap, can't even watch now. I hope it's not just sensationalism, it'd be sad to see his death being used like that.

The rest of the album:-

"Runnin' With The Devil"
"Eruption"
"You Really Got Me"
"Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love"
"I'm the One"
"Jamie's Cryin'"
"Feel Your Love Tonight"
"Little Dreamer"
"Ice Cream Man"
"On Fire"

^Upvoted^ & thanks for posting

jamie lee looked nice 15 yrs before her intestinal troubles started and she turned to yogurt

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^shuac:
>> ^JiggaJonson:
Danarys is not supposed to get the unsullied until the third book... -_-
Part of why I've liked the series so far is the fact that they followed the books so closely. I'm gonna be disappointed if they stray from that formula.

Christ, there's only been one season so far. How could you get used to that aspect so quickly? Especially since it isn't true: toward the end of season 1, they dip into book 2 a little bit (Arya and Gendry joining Yoren for their trip to the wall)...so I'm just gonna call a little bullshit on you. Just a tinsy bit, mind you.
Besides...all the books after book 1 do not have enough going on to warrant their own 10 episode arc. Not like book 1 had. So in short: they are absolutely picking & choosing the best story elements of book 2 and 3 for season 2. Live with it. Or don't.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
I trust the show runners to understand that to have, for example, the red wedding in season 2 would be too early. That's probably a season 3 storyline. But as far as Daenerys goes: what does she actually do for all of book 2? Not that much: she travels the desert, goes to Qarth, and walks through that magic room maze thing. Yaaaawn.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
My big concern is getting HBO to see the series through to the end without canceling it. That's the real cliffhanger.

I'm sorry, bullshit on what, exactly? That they didn't stick to the story line of the book in the first season?

The only glaring example of that, I can think of in the first season, is when Caitlyn visits Jamie Lanister at the camp and gets him to admit pushing Brann out of the window. That and I guess the part you mentioned. But, to be fair, Arya's last chapter in Game of Thrones ends with him cutting off her hair and telling her to go with him; the show shows her being called to the cart right after that happened. That insignificant difference is far cry from introducing an entirely new set of characters/plot element from a different book a whole season too soon.
Find me more glaring examples of not closely following the plot and we'll have something to discuss, until then...
throws bullshit back @shuac


They are doing their best to keep each season within the book it's supposed to parallel but the big issue is the the books get bigger. A Clash of Kings is longer than A Game of Thrones by a bit and A Storm of Swords is substantially longer than both of those. *Spoiler Alert* To be able to fit the red wedding into the end of season 3 they are going to need to get started with a bit of book 3 at the end of the 2nd season. These guys have done a fantastic job of adapting season one so I've still got very high hopes for future seasons.

>> ^shuac:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
Danarys is not supposed to get the unsullied until the third book... -_-
Part of why I've liked the series so far is the fact that they followed the books so closely. I'm gonna be disappointed if they stray from that formula.

Christ, there's only been one season so far. How could you get used to that aspect so quickly? Especially since it isn't true: toward the end of season 1, they dip into book 2 a little bit (Arya and Gendry joining Yoren for their trip to the wall)...so I'm just gonna call a little bullshit on you. Just a tinsy bit, mind you.
Besides...all the books after book 1 do not have enough going on to warrant their own 10 episode arc. Not like book 1 had. So in short: they are absolutely picking & choosing the best story elements of book 2 and 3 for season 2. Live with it. Or don't.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
I trust the show runners to understand that to have, for example, the red wedding in season 2 would be too early. That's probably a season 3 storyline. But as far as Daenerys goes: what does she actually do for all of book 2? Not that much: she travels the desert, goes to Qarth, and walks through that magic room maze thing. Yaaaawn.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
My big concern is getting HBO to see the series through to the end without canceling it. That's the real cliffhanger.

I'm sorry, bullshit on what, exactly? That they didn't stick to the story line of the book in the first season?


The only glaring example of that, I can think of in the first season, is when Caitlyn visits Jamie Lanister at the camp and gets him to admit pushing Brann out of the window. That and I guess the part you mentioned. But, to be fair, Arya's last chapter in Game of Thrones ends with him cutting off her hair and telling her to go with him; the show shows her being called to the cart right after that happened. That insignificant difference is far cry from introducing an entirely new set of characters/plot element from a different book a whole season too soon.

Find me more glaring examples of not closely following the plot and we'll have something to discuss, until then...

*throws bullshit back @shuac*

>> ^marinara:

dead?


Fixed and thanks!

>> ^kir_mokum:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Raiding-The-Lost-Ark but the last original isn't working.


Dude, that is only first 17 minutes. Compare the time with mine.

>> ^papple:

>> ^Yogi:
Ok Jerry Rice is probably the greatest athlete to have ever lived so lets lay off.

Daley Thompson is rolling in his grave.


Jamie Carragher will kick both your asses.

Edit: Seriously, this is definitely a cricket style catch, and in one of the few countries that care about cricket. Ricky Ponting gets my vote.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Don't know about that. Those Twitter and Facebook links that they surface look like the profile pages of the users. I don't need to be logged into Facebook to see Jamie Oliver's Facebook profile page: https://www.facebook.com/jamieoliver
>> ^mxxcon:

Actually this video is a bit misleading.
While this bookmarklet might float twitter or facebook to the top above G+, those results will have no actual useful data. You see that in the video. Every twitter or facebook snippet is just useless "sign up" text.
If twitter would decide to allow Google to index their stream, aka "firehose", i'm sure these results would've been different and perhaps more useful.

A man can believe one thing, and be tolerant of others... as well as have faith that people, if given the choice, will eventually do the right thing... even if though that is different for everyone, the most fit and fair system has a chance to emerge




..." the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem." - Ron Paul



-------------------- So how does this translate to the issues:

Defense of Marriage Act: allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States,” Rep. Paul said last week in a statement. “Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.”

[[ SEE, there is his OPINION and PERSONAL BELIEFS ]]

“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state,” he added. “I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”"

He's not saying they SHOULD. He's saying the people have a right to choose. Not that they then have a DUTY to vote as he would. He wants people to decide, because he believes that marriage should ultimately not involve government

I see how his logic may appear convoluted, but it is not when taken to the conclusion: People decide (right or wrong), and everyone should be free.
---

In 2004, Paul was one of only 27 House Republicans who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

In 2010, he flipped from a “no” to a “yes” on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," he explained. “To me, this seems like an awful waste.”
------
Eric Dondero is the one telling "eye witness" stories about Ron Paul and he is not exactly credible as a political rival and former staffer...

"After 4yrs of never accusing the Doc of actually knowing directly about it, he comes out full bore accusing he checked off on everyone of them, all the while contradicting himself in the same sentence that he only read about 30% and sent notes off to his staff or ghostwriters to complete the newsletters."

Eric Dondero was FIRED by Paul and wants to run against him for office.

Eric Dondero, a staffer who was fired.
http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say."

Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html


So who else did the newsletters? Lou Rockwell isn't of interest to me, MURRAY ROTHBARD is.

I am seriously disappointed that people here can connect the dots to Dr. Paul yet Rothbard is clearly innocent.

He just happened to die in 1995... and we've heard nothing about newsletter content as inflammatory as when he was involved, since.

You don't think Murray Rothbard, is worth looking at?

"Equality is not in the natural order of things, and the crusade to make everyone equal in every respect (except before the law) is certain to have disastrous consequences." - Murray Rothbard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

he (Rothbard) also wrote film reviews under a pen name (anonymously)

Someone did the newsletters... in a way THEY KNEW would ensure their anonymity (because Ron Paul did not write the racist articles), perhaps by their position of trust in the company, or with tacit approval by one or more people attempting to subvert a cause for their own.

written misinformation is surely not all it takes to win you over

Why is it so hard to conceive that an active conspiracy to hide the newsletters from Paul was successful, when the outcome would be exactly the same as the one we're debating? The one where NO ONE has heard Ron Paul ever, EVER say anything like the things in the newsletters?

Ever. Not even HEARD him say it.

Jamie Lee was very impressive in the 80s

You guys can be smartasses all you want, but it is sad that you're willing to extrapolate conclusions you're posting.

-----

1:30 to 2:11 --- He speaks about the Right to own property privately. He says the UN will not protect those rights.

4:13 to 4:37 -- The UN will not let us practice religion in the same way.

6:29 to end -- Describes lack of need for UN to talk to other countries. The UN is taking our sovereignty by acting as the middle man. 54 representatives vote for a measure to withdraw from the UN.
---------------------

By golly he must have wrote those things about blacks and AIDS!

I'd really like to draw the same conclusions but I really dont know what source material you all are watching... this is far from paranoia

PS: Why are do you mention Lew Rockwell at all, and ignore Murray Rothbard and Eric Dondero?

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say."

Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters

Eric Dondero was a staffer who was fired.
http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html


You guys are starting to look silly and I'm starting to wonder just how hard you need to try to prove something that you say is so obvious. You know, like the clip of GW Bush giving the camera the middle finger. There has to be an actual slip up, not just your own interpretation of someone elses interpretation of something someone read.

Still swiftboating and muddying the waters? Still not talking about Murray Rothbard's role in this all?





Well lets look at some actual facts:
----------------------------------BEGIN

In early 2008, this article revealed that "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of the Ron Paul newsletters published from "roughly 1989 to 1994."

Financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic. To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul—accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman's recent writings and audio recordings.

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say." He has characterized discussion of the newsletters as "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies" of The New Republic. Paul himself called the controversy "old news" and "ancient history" when we reached him last week, and he has not responded to further request for comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't think Murray Rothbard, is worth looking at?

"Equality is not in the natural order of things, and the crusade to make everyone equal in every respect (except before the law) is certain to have disastrous consequences." - Murray Rothbard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

he also wrote film reviews under a pen name (anonymously) .. so he was no stranger to trying to protect himself while expressing what he truly thought..

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/still-states-greatest-enemy.html

----------------------------

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html

-------------------------------------------------------




I am seriously disappointed that people here can connect the dots to Dr. Paul yet Rothbard is clearly innocent.

He just happened to die in 1995... and we've heard nothing about newsletter content as inflammatory as when he was involved, since.

Get real people. It wasn't Ron Paul. The secret is in the grave at this point.

Like wise.

In reply to this comment by Retroboy:
My monitor now has a bite mark out of it.