RANDOM RANTS XXVIII: Everything is Flammable

[Joecoolyo]

The Packers won

 

[Zack]

The Packers won

Wrong thread, Joe.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Go Bears!

 

[GenMarshall]

..Black Eyed Peas<Bunch of smilies w/ cryptic number and a ;>

Wait, what? When did a bunch of dots trigger the autocensor?! First Chinese/Japanese characters, now this?! The autocensor is going out of control!!!

Before you know it, it will censor cake!

 

[choxorn]

Wrong thread, Joe.

Yeah. Could a mod please move that to the Raves Thread and change the smily to a , or something?

 

[GamezRule]

Why is the autocensor gone to crap!

In other crappy news, the Packers won.

 

[Zack]

Autocensor's freaking out!

 

[GenMarshall]

I found out from our good friend Padma that whoever made the patch to patch a security hole broke it .

 

[Takhisis]

Whoever did that sucks!

(unless it's Padma of course) Seriously, we had multiple Thunderfalls registered. What could be more awesome than that?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Whoever did that sucks!

(unless it's Padma of course) Seriously, we had multiple Thunderfalls registered. What could be more awesome than that?

Everyone on here being Thunderfall!

I dont like the broken characters though its funny

 

[DroopyTofu]

The Black Eyed Peas did the halftime show. First of all, if you're going to use heavily computerized voices on albums, you need to do it live too, or it's going to sound like crap. I'm ignoring the fact that if you sound like crap without a computer, then you shouldn't be in the music business in the first place. Second, why was the entire thing based on the singers. The people making the actual music are the ones actual doing something. I'm assuming they had actual musicians, becuase if there are no musicians, then I don't consider it "music". The singers are up there just hoping that the computer software is sucessfully fixing their voices (which it wasn't), and the people playing the instuements are the one that deserve camera time. Thrid, if you bring in a special guests like Slash, give him more than 60 seconds of time, and let him show off a little. The guitar was no where near loud enough, and this is one of the rare times that I, a bassist, will say "more guitar". The vocals on Sweet Child O' Mine were way too loud, especially for that bad of a singer. The drum overpowered Slash's solo to the point that it was barely audible and technically there isn't even supposed to be a solo there. The surf music riff was out of place and they just panned off Slash and then he was gone. As for the rest of the proformance, bad vocals, low talent level, and part of the "V" in Love was gone. At first I thought it said Lore. It also kinda annoyed me that they skipped around so much and never did a full song. If a band's going to perform at halftime, give them time to actually do their stuff. I'd say at least a 20-30 minute set would be much better than a half-done 12 minute one, but then you would have more music in the Super Bowl than live football. I don't know enough about Usher to give a critique of his song, but once again, they seem to be trying to upstage thier guests. Fergie yelling at random times, out of tune, detracted from the overall experience. The light dancers were really cool though, but I still think I liked The Who's light up stage better, even if they didn't destroy it or do guitar spins. I really hoped they would destroy that stage, or at least a guitar and some amps, but that's another rant.

Also, the Packers won, and I really hate that they are allowed to win by not trying the last several minutes of the game.

 

[Dachs]

Also, the Packers won, and I really hate that they are allowed to win by not trying the last several minutes of the game.

Um, their offense capped the game with a brilliant clock-killing drive that forced the Steelers into trying for a touchdown, then their defense stood up to Pittsburgh for a four-and-out. They definitely tried.

Now, the last two snaps were worthless, but that's how the play clock works, chief.

 

[W|M]

Spoiler :

The European Election results have been positive for the Conservative Party, with a collapse in Labour’s support amidst a general shift away from the established parties. The results also shown an increasing inclination towards EU-scepticism, which may reflect the general mistrust of politicians and an increased desire for accountability and transparency, which the EU patently does not offer.

Set in that context, the increase in voter share for the Conservatives is impressive; it shows we are in touch with public opinion and our candidates best represent and reflect the opinions of the electorate.

The most significant shift we have seen is the increase in the vote of the BNP, who now, shamefully, represent the UK with two MEPs. I am personally embarrassed that we have got to this low point in politics; this is the first time in our great history that we have fascist representation.

The question is, how do we fight the BNP? Their literature, rhetoric and message taps into the insular, protectionist sentiment of the left. We have seen a virtually direct transfer of votes amongst the left; Labour lose 7%, BNP register 6%. Griffin himself admits his party is left wing. Is this an opportunity for the right to once again debate the broader philosophical debate? Has the disintegration of Labour’s support provided the left wing a real alternative?

It is patently obvious that the BNP are racist but that doesn’t mean all the votes they receive come from racists; their message of protectionism, of support for a larger state, of restricting free trade is a classic mixture of left-wing politics. Not only have Labour let down the country with their mishandling of the economy, their sustained attack on our freedom and constitutional vandalism, they have let the left wing down by not fighting the BNP on political grounds.

We should all fight the BNP but Labour have to wake up; the BNP are left wing and are taking Labour votes.

Conservative future have literally no idea what 'left-wing' means

 

[Virote_Considon]

Yes, they do. "Right wing" is not synonymous with "rasist", just because they begin with the same letter.

 

[W|M]

They claim that Protectionism is left-wing.

 

[Takhisis]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa The Autocensor's reaching into the past and destroying psots made before the newest version was activated.

 

[Tee Kay]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa The Autocensor's reaching into the past and destroying psots made before the newest version was activated.

Yeah, I noticed.

 

[Newbunkle]

UK 'should cut links to European Court of Human Rights'

Spoiler :

UK 'should cut links to European Court of Human Rights'

The government should cut its ties with the "expansionist" European Court of Human Rights, says a report by a right-leaning think tank.

The Policy Exchange report says the recent row over prisoners' voting rights highlights the issue.

The report, written by a former government adviser, Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, says the UK has become "subservient" to the Strasbourg court.

He says it also ignores the traditional British freedom of the press.

The report claims the 47 Strasbourg judges have "virtually no democratic legitimacy" and are poorly qualified compared to Britain's own senior judges.

Lord Hoffman, a former Law Lord, who wrote the foreword to the report, said Strasbourg has "taken upon itself an extraordinary power to micromanage the legal systems of the member states".

The report says the ECHR is a "virtually unaccountable supra-national bureaucracy".

The row over voting rights for prisoners was sparked by a judgment from the ECHR in 2005.

The court upheld an appeal by convicted killer John Hirst, who said Britain had breached the European Convention on Human Rights by disenfranchising him.

The judgement meant the UK government was forced to allow prisoners to vote but has tried to limit it to those who were sentenced to less than four years in jail.

Blair Gibbs, Head of Crime and Justice at Policy Exchange, said: "Votes for prisoners has brought to public attention the growing conflict between judges and the wishes of our own elected parliament.

'Strayed beyond remit'

"On this issue, judges in Strasbourg have strayed well beyond their remit and have casually trampled on the rights of Parliament and the role of MPs to decide these essentially political questions.

"The public favour such cases being decided in the UK, not by foreign judges sitting in a remote court."

Policy Exchange says the court represents "worthy ideals" but is not "fit for purpose" and requires "substantial reform".

If improvements are not made within two years, says the report, the government should consider withdrawing from its jurisdiction in order to prevent UK citizens lodging appeals in Strasbourg.

Neil O'Brien, director of Policy Exchange, told the BBC that the UK government did have to follow what was decided in Strasbourg, but that it should end this arrangement.

"Although it is not an easy or simple thing to cut our ties with the court, it is possible, and we argue that for a whole series of reasons we should now cut our ties with the court because it is, increasingly by trivialising and over-extending the concept of human rights into areas where it really doesn't belong... it's really undermining support for human rights," he told Radio 4's Today programme.

BBC home affairs correspondent, Danny Shaw, says the prevailing legal wisdom has been that severing ties with Strasbourg would jeopardise Britain's commitment to human rights laws and its membership of the Council of Europe and the EU.

But the report says there is "strong evidence" from legal experts that this would not be the case.

Lord Hoffman writes: "In the last few years, human rights have become, like health and safety, a byword for foolish decisions by courts and administrators.

"The tendency has been to say that there is nothing to be done. We are stuck with the Convention and the European Court of Human Rights and unless we are willing to cast ourselves as a pariah state and get expelled from the European Union, we must accept the court's jurisdiction.

"But Mr Pinto-Duschinsky shows that the situation is not so hopeless and there are means by which, with sufficient support from other states in the Council of Europe, we can repatriate our law of human rights. It is worth a try," he adds.

Damn those uppity Europeans interfering in our government's plans to infringe our rights! Who do they think they are!?

 

[W|M]

I feel like I'm looking at American politics.

 

[Newbunkle]

I think its infectious. I've seen a few Tories using words like "statist".