Stussy88

Sorry, I was being very unclear with my terms, I did mean a modern compound bow. I was chatting to this guy who is an English civil war re-enacter type after they had just done this battle (I live about 200 yards away from where one of the seiges took place) and he was telling me that the reason that crappy matchlock muskets were favoured over the still more formidable long-bow at the time, was simply a question of training. You could be more or less instructed in the musket in a couple of hours, but to develop the strenth to draw a really powerful longbow took years. I guess compound bows do away with that need.

Well said indeed, even our Olympic pistol guys cannot shoot over here! Happily however, the lead politicos are well protected by armed guards, it's just the rest of us left totally disarmed.

Being a Welshman, I'd love to do that (Henry's archers were principally Welsh) but I couldn't see too many Frenchies volunteering to be shot down in the mud, before being either butchered by said Welsh or running away.

You may not believe this, and I'm not sure I do yet, but to my great joy, Mrs Stussy88 is now expecting our first child! Even more remarkable, he/she was conceived naturally. After many years of efforts I had all but given up on this. Anyway, he/she is due May 2.

Thank you for the extremely detailed and logical reply. Unless longbows are now banned in the UK (I'm not joking, I will have to check!) I'm thinking Mrs Stussy88 might have found her ideal Christmas gift for me.

In the very unlikley event this happens, get your guns ready ~ think Rodney King/LA riots x 1 million.

Really? Is that true, presumably only at relatively short ranges/direct shots as the hitting power must drop off quite quickly Do you need special tipped arrows, like the bodkin of old to penetrate a Knights armour? (I should add, I'm not looking to shoot anyone, just curious)

Great guns. Our government shamefully disarmed the populace almost immediately after coming to office, but pre-ban I used to like the classic WW2 Colt .45 semi-automatic or a 9mm Browning. I tried the Israeli Desert Eagle but found it a tad over-powerful, and ditto the Magnum 44 (Hey you cannot watch Dirty Harry and not want to try that gun). One chap had a Austrian gun, (I think a Steyr if memory serves) which I recall shot .22 caliber bullets, but had a high capacity magazine because of the small size of the bullets and very limited recoil. Now I'm stick with the odd shotgun (you can't even really have pump-action types) or black power revolvers, although, perhaps due to necessity, I'm rather fancying one of the old Colt Dragoon revolvers circa 1850 (you need a licence even for this in the UK). You wouldn't hit much more than 20 yards away I fancy and I don't think it would do much against modern body armour.

Quite amazing really; unprincipled, opportunistic politicos throughout history have always done this, but to be so naked about it beggards belief. And as for the don't think of this as big vs small government, I really enjoy being told what to think !! Most especially when he is effectively saying, don't draw the transparently obvious conclusion. Oh dear, just as we are about to ditch our socialists, you look set for four/eight years with yours. (That said Cameron is McCain without the gravitas (!) if you can imagine such a thing, so it is a case of fire back to frying pan for the UK)

I think I understand the logic behind this, it's lack of self-esteem as other have commented. A good litmus test in business is to spot someone who will say in a meeting "I don't understand that, please explain" In the UK, (possibly because of our more socialistic culture) people in my industry (construction) are most unwilling to do so. If you want to see who is sincere and who is game-playing, just make something up and say it in a sentence i.e. I think the well documented changes in legislation on foundation design (or whatever) will have an impact on costs because of the implications therein. If you get a table full of 'nodding-dogs' sack 'em but if one says "I don't know what you mean?" then he's the guy to promote. (Unless he says that about stuff he should know of course).

Based on what ?

Not being American I don't know the first thing about his politics, but in the x-factor age, that doesn't seem to matter too much!! So, in the sense of image alone (and I repeat, I do not know his views on anything) Bobby Jindal is the telegenic march of Obama

Don't know whether to laugh or cry but did you see this? throw money in a hole

It truly baffles me, that taxpayers cannot see that the reason government backs certain companies is that they are paid, via lobbying to do so. This is naked theft, no more no less, yet some taxpayers, unable to see the wood for the trees actively demand to be looted. Quite amazing. I agree entirely with your points.

The campaign can be summed up as X-Factor meets America's next top president. That and the "death of American journalism" as Hannity remarked on Fox one time. Combine that with a wholly uninspiring Republican choice, and you get Obama

You have to hand it to her... It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master

Come on, throw me a bone, tell me what you think?

Maybe it was looming middle-age. Sure I could have grown the ponytail, or bought the red sports car shaped like a penis, or bombed out the delectable Mrs Stussy88 for some transient teen mistress, but the least awkward option was the novel. And here it is. Single acts of tyranny website If anyone cares to read it, probably best to follow the link to Amazon (which takes you to the UK site) where you can order it. If there are any Brits on here apart from me, you can use the paypal link. If anyone has an e-book reader or can bear to plod through endless pages on screen, I would be happy to send a PDF copy via e-mail. I would be interested to know what you think?

This is remarkable anarchy Bamboozle the gullible jury I almost don't know where to start this is so wrong. The science is a nonsense anyway, but even if it wasn't you don't get to destroy that which you disagree with

I believe that 22 weeks has been achieved in the UK. I am sorry I cannot cite the reference so I maybe mistaken, but I make the remark honestly. Most don't survive at this age and costs are as you say, very high. They may also suffer significant disability if they do survive.

Quite right. We have simliarly crappy laws in the UK and what you can't say is starting to really pile up. Can't insult someone's religion (so no critiques of Islam), or their gender, or their sexuality (which taken to its logical conclusion would include all consensual sex ~ hello NAMBLA of South Park fame), can't deny the holocaust (I obvioulsy wouldn't but it worries me that even lunatic political opinions are banned), and the greens are even trying, under the same legislation to get "climate denial" outlawed. Add to that social pressures not to say stuff, and it gets really Orwellian.

I'm afraid I disagree. The role of the government should be to see that contracts voluntarily entered into are enforced. It is not to decide what people are allowed to agree betwen themselves. Corporations are somewhat different in that they seek to trade with more or less everyone and so, an agreed legal framework may make more sense, but private contracts between two people are surely best left to them. Consider, if two people decide that they wish to enter into a contractual clause outside of state law, then as long as they are both competent adults not under compulsion, hould we really use the power of the state to prevent it?

Ruveyn and Ray, if I may respond to you both in this post. Ruveyn ~ you are right, we are not the living slaves (or at least should not be) of anyone regardless of peril. If you chose not to aid anyone, you are free to do so (in Stussy88 land anyway). The point I was making is that since vast sums are taken in the UK via taxes to fund any number of treatments from help to quit drugs (the ultimate self-inflicted woe) to cosmetic surgery (you can get breast enhancement surgery if you claim to be suffering psychologically from wearing a 34a bra?), it is my view that a foetus has at least as much right to life saving treatment as a drug addict criminal or a woman desirous of a better rack I was suggesting that whilst I do not support mandatory taxation for any medical purpose, I would choose to voluntarily aid a foetus in these circumstances. No compulsion of others was intended. Ray, having made a good number of mistakes with women my self over the years, I would in no way enforce a punishment on a man or woman for the same. Nor would I abolish abortions up to 12 weeks. I would only tell others how to live their life in very limited circumstances, for example, don't kill someone else. To have rights, it is sensible, indeed necessary to enforce the rights of everyone via a limited legal structure. Certainly smaller than today's sprawling legal code, but the concept of an enforced legal code is prerequisite for rights to exist at all. So an abortion is acceptable, but there comes a point when the foetus in my view deserves the protection everyone else expects. Otherwise we are back to the 2 minutes before/2 minutes after pregnancy question. For me that point comes when the foetus could be sustained by medical intervention, when the foetus develops a nervous system, or when the foetus feels pain. Hence I conclude that abortions up to around 12 weeks should be legal; those after around 15 weeks violate at least one of the above principles and should not. At this point I begin to accord rights and legal protection to the foetus. (For the avoidance of doubt, I have no religious faith at all.) In the UK a lawful, 24 week abortion violates all three principles and should not in my view be lawful.

There are two main answers to this question. The most obvious cost is to the foetus that is denied the medical care that would save it. The cost to the foetus is death, possibly a lingering death as the hospitals in the UK would not actively kill the foetus, they would simply allow it to expire (presumably on the assumption that it is morally more acceptable to do so. It is not. The latter is simply a more scenic route to the same destination.) But if you mean how is healthcare funded in the UK, it is a nationalised system with only fringe private sector activity. Obviously, I do not support the state running healthcare services. However, I cannot simply refuse to fund the treatment of a foetus on the basis that I disagree with the funding mechanism, nor would I impose the death penalty on it for having reckless crappy parents. We talk much of morality on these boards, in this case, I can see no other moral position. Ergo, I would pay to save the foetus, whether the money was taken by force via taxation, or by voluntary donation if it was not.

the link does not seem to be working, could you re-post it ?