I was unaware of any tribal *controversy. It's kind of like a the Philippines, some say it's Asia, some say "Pacific Islands". To tell you the truth, I could care less what they call themselves, it's easier for me to add them to a *british tag (for lack of an *Ireland channel).

Funny you reference wikipedia, because if you go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain

it's a different story...

In reply to this comment by EDD:
Irish ≠ Britons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

but OK, I'll let it slide - this time ONLY though!.. I promise, I'll keep my eye on you...

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Client: Guinness

Guinness made in Dublin

Dublin in Ireland which is part of Great Britain

*british

Irish ≠ Britons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

but OK, I'll let it slide - this time ONLY though!.. I promise, I'll keep my eye on you...

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Client: Guinness

Guinness made in Dublin

Dublin in Ireland which is part of Great Britain

*british

Client: Guinness

Guinness made in Dublin

Dublin in Ireland which is part of Great Britain

*british


In reply to this comment by EDD:
*nochannel
*cute
*catsanddogs
*viral
*wheels
*howto
*downunder (British? cmon.)

Client: Guinness

Guinness made in Dublin

Dublin in Ireland which is part of Great Britain

*british

Duckie, you're kidding right? Scotland is most definitely part of Great Britain. As we are constantly reminded when Andy Murray and Wimbledon roll round.

Totally agree about the album - it's driving glossy pop of the highest order and has some very well written songs.

What about to defend themselves from their government?

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is no way a burka-clad fundamentalist Muslim woman would ever become a western school teacher, because the same dogma that forces her to cover her entire body in cloth also requires her to have a male escort when outside of the house. Are you telling me that this teacher had a male family member escort her through college, credentialing, student teaching, job interviews, hiring and ultimately 9 months a year of work? I'm calling BS on this one.
This sounds like the kind of thing you find on fringe political sites, chain emails and talk radio.
Same thing with the cross story. I've done a lot of teaching and seen plenty of people who wear crosses. Do you know how hard it is to fire a teacher? Even if some rogue principal decided to fire someone for wearing a cross, the Unions would file a huge lawsuit - which they would win - and the principal would be let go immediately, while the teacher in question would get a large settlement. Either there is more to this story (i.e. proselytizing on the clock, wearing a T-shirt that said 'Jesus Saves', having sex with students, etc) or this story is bullshit.
Maybe things are completely different where you live, but I doubt it. You are trying to paint the picture of some massively oppressive cultural phenomena, but struggling to even come up with small isolated examples, let alone some kind of powerful systemic force. In my opinion, you are getting worked up over nothing.


I'm certainly worked up now, after you speaking to me like i'm some sort of wack-job when all i tried to do was throw a few "other end of the spectrum" examples in to show how a subject can be counter-productive to that which it is trying to aid.

Fortunately for me, you're completely wrong on this one, they were fully covered by many different news sources across great britain. It's almost common knowledge over here to anyone who follows the news and current events. However, your opinion that i'm trying to paint some oppressive cultural phenomenon is erroneous. I've simply said that "political correctness can often be counter productive to racial harmony", and cited a few examples.

So, i'm sorry dude, but they're 100% true. Despite your defensive stance over this, i think you simply don't realise we're agreeing that people simply need to be nice to each other the world over and racial differences and racial struggles will be a thing of the past. I think you've firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick and you're not WANTING to see or hear anything that might impact on the stubborn ideas you have about political correctness. I think you've got it in your head that i'm a racist, or at least ignorant, and you're dead set on proving it even if it means ignoring half of what i say. I think you're the ignorant one.

Now let me tell you something - my dad is not only a teacher but a head teacher, has been for 20 of 35 teaching years. Yes i know how tough it is to fire a teacher, i'm very very familiar with the ins and outs of the NUT as a result of such and ...... i won't go on.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6066726.stm
There is the story about the woman wearing the burkha, if you're interested (you're not) in finding out more information (you're not) and getting to the root of the story (you're not) and you'll see that originally she was allowed to continue teaching until students complained again that they couldn't understand her. So please research a little more and deliver your apology post haste (i'll wait for it while i wait for hell to freeze over)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-418819/BA-cross-women-vows-compromise-92-cent-public-her.html
Regardless of the "do you know anything about teaching" (and my father sits here as i write this laughing at me being asked that question) debate, this woman was not a teacher and i never said she was. Go ahead and read it and research it if you like, but i warn you once again that it might encourage you to change your POV and i can see you get frosty when your POV is challenged.

Want another? A christian nurse asked an old lady (who was very ill) if she wanted her (the nurse) to pray for her recovery. The old lady said no, made a complaint, and the nurse has been suspended. That was in either today's or yesterday's newspaper.

Please, please, please do not speak in such an antagonistical manner to me when all i did was try to have a little chat and give you my opinion on political correctness. And at least have the common decency to listen to my opinion before slating it. And then, once you've done that, have a little search for subjects that you're about to summarily dismiss without consideration. And then, finally, get off your "i'm righteous i am" high horse and understand that there are people out there who aren't racist, aren't bigots, aren't xenophobes, but DO find political correctness insulting to their intelligence.

I am neither heavily for nor heavily against political correctness, i have stated my opinion and you have translated it to suit your over zealous righteous attitude. I am, however, heavily against having my polite friendly attitude replied to by haughty supercillious pomp, and that's why i'm more stern with this reply than with my previous.

I'm looking forward to see exactly which parts of this you ignored.

Peter points out one of the main flaw in the Keynesian economic theory in about the midpoint of the video. His contemporary states that since unemployment is on the rise that inflation won't be a problem, this is because of his obvious Keynesian background. In the Keynesian model, it views the function of the economy in such a way that you can not have inflation and high unemployment...they are mutually exclusive in other words.

However, during the late 70s and early 80s we went through a time of what would be called stagflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation). It was a time of high unemployment and inflation which should of been impossible. In short, the mass of people that run the financial world still operate on a defunct model. As the old adage goes, you can't teach a old dog new tricks, and the same goes here I guess. All the old players are still operating on the old Keynesian model as were the generation that followed.

All the cures that are being suggested are just MORE government spending. This didn't work in Germany after the war, it didn't work in Bolivia, it didn't work in Russia, it didn't work in Austria, it didn't work for Great Britain, it didn't work in France, it didn't work in Poland, it didn't work in Chile; here is a hint, it isn't going to work for us either. Stay tuned for the complete devaluation of your 401k and all your savings!

"all guns will be confiscated and..."

its funny(?) until it comes true. list of countries/states that have confiscated firearms:

1938 Germany
1996 Australia
2001 Canada
1991 New York
1999 California
2005 Louisiana
1997 Great Britain
1935 China
1964 Guatemala
1956 Cambodia
1970 Uganda
1929 USSR
1911 Turkey
Bermuda
Cuba
Greece
Ireland
Jamaica
Soviet Georgia
Kenya
South Africa

Aye, the difference being that most of the American lefties that put Obama into office aren't going to sit around and make excuses for him.

Unless they're Democratic loyalists saying "just wait and be patient." Yeah, that's always worked....

But here we are criticizing the poor lad and he's not even in office yet.

And you forget, Great Britain, we are a land of guns.

If no white-supremacist, CIA/Mossad patsy doesn't off the dear man in the mean time, I still hope he holds true to the populace in the face of the Council on Foreign Relations.

He was the "Non-Bush" candidate for many of us.

But I feel like the Titanic has veered a few degrees from the iceberg.

I think he'll prove true. Fingers crossed with hope.

Upvote for the informative part of it, even though the frame/format of it makes it a pain in the ass to watch.

@swampgirl: Why aren't they up for criminal charges? Hmmm?

Eric Janszen so eloquently said in his article The next bubble: Priming the markets for tomorrow's big crash:

Given the current state of our economy, the only thing worse than a new bubble would be its absence.

The bubbles might just keep the machine running, no matter the dire condition of the engine.

Take Great Britain for example, similar problem, different cause. Low supply combined with tax advantages and ARMs created a housing situation just as lopsided. If you add a "buy now, pay later" culture as it currently is so very apparent in Anglo-American regions, amongst others, the fun begins.

In today's world where we're fed lies and bullshit by the media and our own governments, where (british examples only sry) you can get fined MORE for leaving your bin lid open by 3 inches than shoplifters get fined for stealing, 4 burly binmen force a frail older lady to carry her own bin down her drive because they consider it "too difficult", where police abuse their powers on a seemingly daily basis, and where we seem too apathetic to protest our country going to a war we don't believe in

THIS is what i love to see, THIS is how we should be showing our discontent, THIS is how we should demonstrate not just to our own government but to the people suffering as a result of our governments, that, to quote El Duderinho, THIS AGGRESSION WILL NOT STAND MAN!

I was fucking cheering them on. Unfortunately, if we want to show our discontent in this way, some people will HAVE to break the law and possibly get incarcerated. Because police can cause harm to you within the law, but you can't cause harm to them (ie. to stop THEM causing harm to innocents/people protesting for the good of our future)

I expect, nay hope, to see this in great britain soon due to many things happening atm:
- Reverse racism/reverse political correctness, where you're not allowed to express yourself or your opinions to the full extent for fear of upsetting other people (people get sacked, fined, arrested, villified because of it)
- Political correctness gone mad - where money, time and other resources are wasting in order to find a way of saying or doing things that cannot possibly offend anyone in any way
- Rediculous fines and charges and bill hikes in order to shore up more income to be wasted in the usual manner
- Police chasing statistics and allowing people in danger/in distress to handle it (or not) themselves
- National health service allowing people to become MORE ILL in our hospitals due to neglect and waiting lists, some of those waiting having funded the NHS for 50 years of their life to find they're second in line to a scrounging sponger who never contributed a penny to the services they rape

/ahem
viva la revolution

^what BansheeX said.

NetRunner:
My sources, among others, are excerpts from the best selling author Milton Friedman, the 1976 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics, and hailed "the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it". In "Free to Choose" he writes:

"The combination of economic and political freedom produced a golden age in both Great Britain and the United States in the nineteenth century. The United States prospered even more than Britain. It started with a clean slate: fewer vestiges of class and status; fewer government restraints; a more fertile field for energy, drive, and innovation; and an empty continent to conquer"
"During most of the period of rapid agricultural expansion in the United States the government played a negligible role. Land was made available—but it was land that had been unproductive before."
"...few other government restrictions impeded free trade at home or abroad. Until after World War I immigration was almost completely free (there were restrictions on immigration from the Orient). They came by the millions, and by the millions they were absorbed. They prospered because they were left to their own devices."
"Almost every charitable or public service organization, from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals The Power of the Market to the YMCA and YWCA, from the Indian Rights Association to the Salvation Army, dates from that period. Voluntary cooperation is no less effective in organizing charitable activity than inorganizing production for profit. The charitable activity was matched by a burst of cultural activity—art museums, opera houses, symphonies, museums, public libraries arose in big cities and frontier towns alike."
"Perhaps even more surprising to us today, people were free to travel all over Europe and much of the rest of the world without a passport and without repeated customs inspection. They were free to emigrate and in much of the world, particularly the United States, free to enter and become residents and citizens."


And before you say these ideas no longer apply today...take a look at the economy of Hong Kong, home to 7 million people in 426 square miles.

sorry, dupe
http://www.videosift.com/video/Ukulele-Orchestra-of-Great-Britain-Performs-Nirvanas-Smells-Like-Teen-Spirit

Short answer - Canadian universities are WAY younger than those in the States, so we adopted the 'classic' European terminology. I mean, U of T was founded in 1827 (yeah, guess where I graduated from), and there may be some older universities in Canada (I don't know which), but probably not as old as, say, Harvard.

>> ^Sarzy:
I've got a question which is semi-related to the topic at hand: what's the deal with the terms college and university being seemingly interchangeable in the states? In Canada, college and university are two different things (college is generally a one or two year program in which you learn a trade, whereas university is a three or four year deal in which you learn something a bit more abstract (ie. political science, english, physics, etc.). Is this not the case in the U.S.?


Yeah, American terminology like that bothers me - where's the UNIVERSITY GRAD option???

Anyway, enough people were annoyed by this like us to make a small essay on the topic - the Canadian system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College#Canada

And here's the bit about Amerika
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College#The_origin_of_the_U.S._usage

The founders of the first institutions of higher education in the United States were graduates of the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge. The small institutions they founded would not have seemed to them like universities — they were tiny and did not offer the higher degrees in medicine and theology. Furthermore, they were not composed of several small colleges. Instead, the new institutions felt like the Oxford and Cambridge colleges they were used to — small communities, housing and feeding their students, with instruction from residential tutors (as in the United Kingdom, described above). When the first students came to be graduated, these "colleges" assumed the right to confer degrees upon them, usually with authority -- for example, the College of William and Mary has a Royal Charter from the British monarchy allowing it to confer degrees while Dartmouth College has a charter permitting it to award degrees "as are usually granted in either of the universities, or any other college in our realm of Great Britain."

Contrast this with Europe, where only universities could grant degrees. The leaders of Harvard College (which granted America's first degrees in 1642) might have thought of their college as the first of many residential colleges which would grow up into a New Cambridge university. However, over time, few new colleges were founded there, and Harvard grew and added higher faculties. Eventually, it changed its title to university, but the term "college" had stuck and "colleges" have arisen across the United States.

Eventually, several prominent colleges/universities were started to train Christian ministers. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Brown all started to train preachers in the subjects of Bible and theology. However, now these universities teach theology as a more academic than ministerial discipline.

With the rise of Christian education, renowned seminaries and Bible colleges have continued the original purpose of these universities. Criswell College and Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas; Southern Seminary in Louisville; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois; and Wheaton College and Graduate School in Wheaton, Illinois are just a few of the institutions that have influenced higher education in Theology in Philosophy to this day.

In U.S. usage, the word "college" embodies not only a particular type of school, but has historically been used to refer to the general concept of higher education when it is not necessary to specify a school, as in "going to college" or "college savings accounts" offered by banks. "University" is sometimes used in such contexts by Americans who wish to avoid ambiguity, for example in the context of Internet message boards where the reader hail from a different English speaking country.