He seems to have kept his country quiet for many a year. Maybe he was a nice wee man who loved to crotchet.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,864
I see son of Malcolm McLaren is burning punk memorabilia because:
"Punk has become another marketing tool to sell you something you don't need,"
He didn't know his father very well ,did he?
Quote: keewik @ 26th November 2016, 8:41 PMHe seems to have kept his country quiet for many a year. Maybe he was a nice wee man who loved to crotchet.
It's very likely that none of us would be alive today had the Soviets heeded Castro's pleas for a nuclear first strike against the United States in 1962. Here was a man who was willing to see Cuba and Cubans incinerated by a nuclear firestorm -- along with untold millions of Americans, Russians, Europeans and others -- in order to protect his brutal regime's grip on power. All while he hid out in a bunker, I'm sure.
Luckily for the world, Khrushchev understood that Castro's request for a nuclear strike against the United States would unleash a horrifying global thermonuclear war which would have had unthinkably devastating effects. So as the world's leftists, communists and other America haters eulogize the man who destroyed Cuba and much of the Cuban population in his quest to build his cult of personality, they seem to have forgotten (or, more likely, ignored) that the dead man urged the destruction of much more: the United States, and he didn't care if the world as we know it was destroyed in the process.
A portion of Khrushchev's letter in response to Castro's calls for a nuclear first strike:
In your cable of October 27 you proposed that we be the first to carry out a nuclear strike against the enemy's territory. Naturally you understand where that would lead us. It would not be a simple strike, but the start of a thermonuclear world war.
Dear Comrade Fidel Castro, I find your proposal to be wrong, even though I understand your reasons. We have lived through a very grave moment, a global thermonuclear war could have broken out. Of course the United States would have suffered enormous losses, but the Soviet Union and the whole socialist bloc would have also suffered greatly.
It is even difficult to say how things would have ended for the Cuban people. First of all, Cuba would have burned in the fires of war. Without a doubt the Cuban people would have fought courageously but, also without a doubt, the Cuban people would have perished heroically.
We struggle against imperialism, not in order to die, but to draw on all of our potential, to lose as little as possible, and later to win more, so as to be a victor and make communism triumph.
Perhaps Castro was a bit pissed off by all the American attempts to kill him.
Quote: keewik @ 9th November 2016, 11:38 PMWell, in my opinion May is a dictatorial shit. Thinks she should rule the roost without consulting our elected parliament.
Quote: keewik @ 26th November 2016, 8:41 PMHe seems to have kept his country quiet for many a year. Maybe he was a nice wee man who loved to crotchet.
To suggest that Theresa May, or any leader of a modern western democracy, is dictatorial and seeks to override parliamentary protocol while to joke that a man who tortured and killed thousands of his opponents and brought the world to the brink of Armageddon "may have been a nice man who loved to crochet" is a rather odd perspective.
Quote: Billy Bunter @ 27th November 2016, 6:59 PMTo suggest that Theresa May, or any leader of a modern western democracy, is dictatorial and seeks to override parliamentary protocol while to joke that a man who tortured and killed thousands of his opponents and brought the world to the brink of Armageddon "may have been a nice man who loved to crochet" is a rather odd perspective.
Christ! You really are a weird obsessed swine! Away and work!
Obviously I've got under your skin in some way since you have a need to 'pick' on me. I'm delighted about that. Shows I haven't lost my touch for getting up the noses of inane pricks.
And on a more sensible level - question for Da Butt - what's your take on the Dakota situation?
Quote: keewik @ 27th November 2016, 8:39 PMChrist! You really are a weird obsessed swine! Away and work!
Obviously I've got under your skin in some way since you have a need to 'pick' on me. I'm delighted about that. Shows I haven't lost my touch for getting up the noses of inane pricks.
Without wishing to perpetuete this exchange of views any further if you really feel that I am "picking on you", I have to say that that does seem a rather extreme - and unnecessarily abusive - reaction to my merely having quoted a previous post and disagreeing with its sentiments, something I thought was one of the things we all did on these forums and which, in turn, can generate further discussion.
It would be nice if differing viewpoints could be the basis for meaningful, adult debate rather than just triggering a torrent of abuse.
I shall say no more on the subject.
Quote: Billy Bunter @ 27th November 2016, 6:59 PMTo suggest that Theresa May, or any leader of a modern western democracy, is dictatorial and seeks to override parliamentary protocol while to joke that a man who tortured and killed thousands of his opponents and brought the world to the brink of Armageddon "may have been a nice man who loved to crochet" is a rather odd perspective.
Quote: keewik @ 27th November 2016, 8:39 PMChrist! You really are a weird obsessed swine! Away and work!
Obviously I've got under your skin in some way since you have a need to 'pick' on me. I'm delighted about that. Shows I haven't lost my touch for getting up the noses of inane pricks.
Billy Bunter's post was topical, relevant, polite, and it made a sensible point. I don't know what your history with him is, but his post didn't contain anything that even remotely warranted calling him a swine or an inane prick. Maybe there's bad blood between the two of you and you'd never consider issuing an apology, but you should save such invective for when it's actually warranted.
Quote: Billy Bunter @ 28th November 2016, 2:14 PMWithout wishing to perpetuete this exchange of views any further if you really feel that I am "picking on you", I have to say that that does seem a rather extreme - and unnecessarily abusive - reaction to my merely having quoted a previous post and disagreeing with its sentiments, something I thought was one of the things we all did on these forums and which, in turn, can generate further discussion.
It would be nice if differing viewpoints could be the basis for meaningful, adult debate rather than just triggering a torrent of abuse.
I shall say no more on the subject.
My reaction was a result of your previous carry-on when you must have trawled through months of my previous posts, so you could quote them. I find that a weird way to pass one's time.
Quote: DaButt @ 28th November 2016, 3:45 PMBilly Bunter's post was topical, relevant, polite, and it made a sensible point. I don't know what your history with him is, but his post didn't contain anything that even remotely warranted calling him a swine or an arrogant prick. Maybe there's bad blood between the two of you and you'd never consider issuing an apology, but you should save such invective for when it's actually warranted.
Yes, history. see my post above.
Quote: keewik @ 27th November 2016, 8:53 PMAnd on a more sensible level - question for Da Butt - what's your take on the Dakota situation?
I haven't paid much attention to it, to be honest, but here's my view:
Nobody wants a pipeline to be built in their back yard. The same goes for nuclear power plants, wind farms, solar farms, landfills, dairy farms, dams, highways, airports, railroads, refineries, and countless other facilities that our society requires. They are necessary for modern life and they have to go somewhere, so there are constant battles every single time they need to be built.
For every argument there is a valid counter-argument:
The Dakota pipeline will pass near a body of water which serves a Native American tribe and a spill would be catastrophic. Yes, but the oil is currently shipped via rail, which is a decidedly more dangerous means of transportation and could result in spills into even more sensitive waterways.
Fracking and pipelines can wreak havoc on the environment. But have you seen how many equally damaging and greater polluting coal mines and coal-fueled plants have shut down? I'll bet the protesters didn't ride solar-powered vehicles to get to the protest sites, rather they undoubtedly enjoyed the benefits of cheap gasoline that the fracking boom has brought to the United States. (I paid $1.72 per gallon yesterday, or the equivalent of 37p per liter.) And there's also the fact that fracking has converted the United States into a net oil exporter, so the economic and political power of, and our reliance on, certain Middle Eastern nations is greatly reduced. "No blood for oil!" indeed.
There will always be battles attached to every new project and, in the end, it all comes down to money...with a healthy dose of ideology (capitalism vs socialism vs communism vs racism vs states' rights vs individual rights vs liberalism vs conservatism vs Democrats vs Republicans vs blah, blah, blah). Big money will push the project through, landowners will be paid handsomely, and if there's a spill, the affected community will demand a fortune in compensation.
Most annoying of all is that the Native Americans have seen their cause co-opted by the usual array of anti-American, green, politically correct, semi-professional protesters, celebrities and uber-liberal politicians who crop up at every protest these days. Keewik's post prompted me to do a Google search for the latest news from the pipeline protest, and what accompanied the top result from the news? A photo of a woman wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh. Color me unsurprised...
And don't even get me started on how horribly managed Native American reservations are. They make our ghettos seem like booming wonderlands, and much of it boils down to poor leadership from the tribal leaders.
Quote: keewik @ 28th November 2016, 3:53 PMMy reaction was a result of your previous carry-on when you must have trawled through months of my previous posts, so you could quote them. I find that a weird way to pass one's time.
Call it weird, call it obsessive, call it petty -- I still don't think that quoting someone's own words merits calling them "swine" or "an inane prick." If he's called you similar names then all is fair (although I'd suggest private messages to spare us the nastiness) but unless/until he calls you names, why call him names?
The US even has to police these boards, it's a World Wide Job! 
P.S. I am merely jesting here folks - comedy website and all that!
Quote: Frankie Rage @ 28th November 2016, 4:48 PMThe US even has to police these boards, it's a World Wide Job!
Just getting in a few last patrols before President Trump takes office and withdraws our force back to the United States, as promised. 
'I would have won the popular vote if you discount the illegal votes'
Yes, he may try and bring in voter ID too, based on today's news.. 