Gryzemuis on 7/2/2010 at 13:30
Quote Posted by Namdrol
In the Michael Parkinson interview he gave in 2006, Blair actually said he made policy decisions according to his conscience, guided by his Christian faith and that God and history would judge him on the decision to invade Iraq.
The guy is a grade A fruit loop.
Doesn't surprise me.
The day after 911, when it slowly became clear it was Al-Qaida who was responsible, G.W. Bush made a speech. He used the word "crusade" to get the people responsible for 911. He was quickly corrected by his spin-doctors to never use the word "crusade" again. This was discussed in the media at the time. The reason was (I think) that the Bush administration wanted to prevent all doubt that the next war (against "The Muslim extremists") would have any religious undertone. I guess the Saudis would then have a problem selling the upcoming war(s) to their home-front. The immediate use of the word "crusade", and the carefulness with which the word was avoided later, is a clear sign to me that there was a religious base for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Don't forget, G.W. Bush is a Born-Again Christian who thought his presidency was a Mission From God.
We should be very thankful for the fact that Reagan ended his presidency reasonably calm. Reagan also was a religious nutcase. He firmly believed in the upcoming Armageddon. Which would cleanse the earth, and bring paradise for true Christians. I remember reading articles about this in serious magazines and newspapers. Some people believed that Reagan wouldn't have minded if the Israel-Arab conflict would have ended in a nuclear war. Which then would have brought his beloved Armageddon. If you Google for it, you can still find old articles about this subject.
Religion is still killing people. Big time.
Inline Image:
http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c114612/images/2009/victor-stenger-bus.jpgStarrfall on 7/2/2010 at 16:29
Do you guys have criminal restitution? It says he was ordered to pay 200 in costs, but "costs" could be anything. Or is it not really a big thing (in cases like this at least, where restitution would be for medical expenses) because your health care system is different/less expensive?
Aerothorn on 7/2/2010 at 19:05
Gonna have to agree with AR Master. The main thing I took away from my legal class in London is that English law is bananas, largely due to it drawing from all sorts of (often conflicting) sources ranging from ancient common law to various EU doctrines, rather than from a few central sources (like, say, a constitution or a bill of rights - both of which England lacks). The recent transition to EU law and the establishment of a Supreme Court *may* make things a bit more consistent, but who knows.
june gloom on 7/2/2010 at 19:58
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
I was exaggerating a little bit ..... maybe ..... ?
OK, I learned my lesson. On TTLG it is OK to wish people cancer. But it's not OK to want to shoot politicians (or their wives). Maybe we can put it in the FAQ for new people ?
Wishing someone would suddenly, randomly develop a long series of cellular mutations that eventually result in cancer is not the same thing as wishing a political figure (or anyone else) be executed for expressing their views, however distasteful you might find those views. Idiot.
Tenkahubu on 7/2/2010 at 20:26
Ooh! I know. It's because cancer is part of God's plan right?
june gloom on 8/2/2010 at 03:18
Are you trolling me or are you just stupid?
DDL on 8/2/2010 at 11:45
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Gonna have to agree with AR Master. The main thing I took away from my legal class in London is that English law is bananas, largely due to it drawing from all sorts of (often conflicting) sources ranging from ancient common law to various EU doctrines, rather than from a few central sources (like, say, a constitution or a bill of rights - both of which England lacks). The recent transition to EU law and the establishment of a Supreme Court *may* make things a bit more consistent, but who knows.
I imagine it depends highly on which bits of the law you're looking at at any given time, and how you're comparing. Certainly the UK legal system seems to be getting more american in terms of ludicrous litigiousness (had an accident at work that wasn't your fault? You can sue some poor fuck for compensation!), but by and large it seems fairly straightforward. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be entirely wrong :)...but my non-lawyer perspective is that it isn't THAT crazy.
As for constitution/bill of rights, I guess it's down to the fact that the US was actually
founded, rather than just kinda gradually accruing. The UK does have the Magna Carta, though, so the same sort of things have been established.
Fragony on 8/2/2010 at 12:29
This is pretty damn poor judgement and she should be fired, or better tarred and feathered and put on display on town-square. Beats the Wilders-trial here in the wtf-department. Political correctness should die, and religion should never have lived in the first place. ijjits
Fingernail on 8/2/2010 at 12:38
Yeah, to be fair though, she is married to a WAR CRIMINAL
Fragony on 8/2/2010 at 12:47
I am just kinda surprised this is possible, if he didn't have a criminal record ok, that is a reason for a lighter sentence. Wonder if this is really really clumsy wording (aren't the Blair's deeply religious theirselves?) from a stern-mother type or that she actually meant it.
