Artful Dodger: he is a TWIT...how can you have someone in charge of a country like the US ofA that is so obviously incompetant....don't you feel glad AD that you didn't vote him in?

Let's cut it with the name calling. It has been deleted, and all references back to it have been deleted. Thank you

Bernice:


"I do all my bargaining face to face."

I do both. Online and face to face. But that the same item can vary (eg pool) by about £35 shows the reliance some shops on people being lazy with money. And that is not generally part of the British psyche. I've noticed that there are seasons to the prices on some items, which suggests that at 'peak' season time... we are being ripped off. Especially after the bank situation...

I object to that.

Artful Dodger: A percentage to give depth to "some" would be better.

As to Islam being evil. If that is based on acts, then what is good? We sided with them against the Russians and called them 'freedom fighters'. Then they were the 'good guys'.

don't really have to as money isnt a problem when I want something...If I cant afford it I save until I do. I do all my bargaining face to face.

Google and I aren't friends.....we are mere aquaintances, so Im not a *fibber*

Artful Dodger:

> SOME individual Muslims are ok. Islam is evil. Completely evil. Yes.

I think some religious people are OK, but in esence religion is evil, completely evil. We look at the millions who have died in religious wars and that convinces me that the problem is not just Islam but all religion. Christianity is no better because Christians have been as war like and destructive as other religions. If Islam is evil, so is Christianity and its zeal to convert others, willingly or forcibly. Those who doubt it have to look at the Inquisition, the Crusades, the conquest of the Americas, and the brutal support of Christianity for fascist dictators.

Artful Dodger:

> You're right. Women are too stupid to figure it out on their own. Let's get the government involved.

I don't see where Al Gore said that. He is talking about educating women. Nowhere does he say that the state should impose on women how many children they should have. Well, as always, people read something quoted out of context by somebody else. It is normal these days.

For edification purposes, I found the Games for Change Convention website:

http://www.gamesforchange.org/

According to their website:

"Founded in 2004, Games for Change is the leading global advocate for supporting and making games for social impact. We bring together organizations and individuals from the social impact sector, government, media, academia, the gaming industry and the arts to grow the field, incubate new projects and provide an open platform for the exchange of ideas and resources."

They make games that try to educate about socially important issues. For example, they have a game called EnerCities in which the player is supposed to try to balance people, the planet's environment and profit.

At the event Al Gore gave the opening keynote speech about how digital games can have a positive social impact. His speech was never about women or the government.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/35310/G4C_Al_Gore_Says_Games_Have_Clearly_Arrived_As_A_Mass_Medium.php

If the issue of women's education arose, it would have been during the Q&A period after his speech, and then at no point in time did he intimate that the state should control women's choices.

I think that when you read your blogs, you have to remember that those who blog are self-appointed experts. They give their own interpretation (good or bad) of something else.

I do agree with Al Gore. Women have to be educated and empowered and it is a woman's right to have control over her reproductive abilities. It is the only way to ensure sustainable population growth. Of course, those who criticize indiscrimantely won't see that.

Artful Dodger: Really.

"The main reason for Wilders's acquittal lies in his choice of words and oratory skills rather than his motives. The court held that Wilders's statements (including the movie Fitna) were about Islam (a religion, or, as Wilders has it, an ideology) and not Muslims (as individuals or as a group) and, hence, these remarks are not discriminatory or insulting. Nor did they incite hatred. It is about facts – what has been said. Motives are less relevant to the question of guilt. A strict interpretation of selected facts seems to justify the verdict. So it is OK to rant and rave against Islam, even though the subtext suggests that the ranting and raving is geared towards Muslims. As subtexts have no place in law it is back to politics again: there, subtext and intention is all that matters. But how best to resist Wilders and the populist mob?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/23/geert-wilders-acquitted-incitement-hatred

Now... He got off for saying Muslims are ok as individuals, and Islam is eViL as an ideology.

So.. you are agreeing that Muslims are ok?

Artful Dodger: I'm sure you can find more details on him on the web... rather than the neo con website you read.

But hey... in the end how you perceive him is a matter of choice. To the average UK resident.. he's just another Nick Griffin.

Tuesday: Price differences can vary so much. The rip-offs that some shops try and get away with is shocking!!

Artful Dodger: He's not for free speech, he's not even a free speech advocate. He's just another neo con wanting his 15 minutes.

Tuesday: Is very handy for little vids demonstrating how to do things that you've never done.... or forgotten how to do

Bernice: ??? You mean you don't check out things!!

Not even for on-line price comparison!!! O .... M .... G

Artful Dodger:

Maybe I am too thick but I see nothing wrong in what Al Gore said there. Educate women, give them a choice on how many children to have, etc. I imagine that is what a modern, intelligent society would do.

I make no assumptions, but "you have to educate girls and empower women" sounds to me like a reasonable suggestion.

I suppose we could educate women to have as many kids as the Bible says, then when those kids are hungry and poor we can have churches sell their land, building and assets to feed the poor.

My name isn't Jules...google and I aren't really good friends.

thanks AD...mesmerizing? not really....it just take some longer than others I guess.

As of 2010, seven countries have converted fully to polymer banknotes: Australia, Bermuda, Brunei, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Romania, and Vietnam. Other countries and regions with notes printed on Guardian polymer in circulation include: Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, Hong Kong (for a 2-year trial), Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Singapore, Solomon Islands (no longer issued), Sri Lanka, Thailand, Samoa and Zambia. Countries and regions that have issued commemorative banknotes (which are not in circulation) on Guardian polymer include: China, Taiwan, Kuwait, Northern Ireland1 and Singapore

wiki

Bernice: I'll bet you've been waiting decades to say that

Australia's first plastic money was 1988 and all money was plastic by the mid-late 1990's....nothing new...

**In this frankly mesmerizing video, above,** ???

Tuesday: Leave it to Canada to put the "sexy" back into money

(V):

> With the intermix of borders I don't think it matters even if.

The point I am trying to make is how hypocritical our governments are.

Did you know that yesterday in Bahrain they passed sentence on pro-democracy protesters. 8 people were given life sentences. 15 people were given sentences ranging from 2 to 25 years. Then two weeks ago the Bahrain government tried 59 doctors and nurses behind closed doors. These medical staff were charged with crimes against the state because the hospitals they worked in were used to treat people injured by the police and the military during the crackdown. It is estimated that over 250 people "disappeared" and thousands were injured during the crackdown.

Why is it that the Nato axis did nothing about Bahrain? The answer is simple. The dictatorial king there allowed Bahrain to become the naval base for both the US and the UK in the Middle East. There are two huge naval bases there, one for the UK and one for the US. If the regime were to change, it is likely that ademocratically elected government would question whether it is appropriate to have those bases in Bahrain.

I guess the king there is not a despotic nutter, he is just a pro-western dictator, and as such he is acceptable to the Nato axis and the Empire.

As always, it is all about hypocrysy and greed. All the talk about Lybia is nothing but excuses to get that country's oil cheaply. If western governments really cared about democracy, they would have bombed Bahrain too. Not to mention Morocco, Yemen and Egypt. What a coincidence that those more "moderate" countries receive military aid from the west. Then of all the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is the worst. That place is so backward that they don't allow women to vote in general elections, run for office or even go unaccompanied in the street without a male relative. I don't see any Nato axis planes over Saudi Arabia, even though no country has given more money to Al Qaeda than Saudi Arabia has.

Übergeek 바둑이: Because the other Arab countries think Gadaffi is a complete sadistic nutter and want him gone as well. The population of Libya want him gone, it takes attention of the rest of the countries away from their dictatorial governments.

..... The other states to 'democracise' would take more money and man power and potentially lead to another "Iraq".

"Is it just me or is Lybia the only country with oil"

With the intermix of borders I don't think it matters even if.

Tuesday: Yes and no. Some will be the way you are 'told' God works by others. They just don't say that half that time that is to just preserve the validity of their way of thinking from pure "righteousness" ...... yet not state that even the "righteous" sin and make errors.

Übergeek 바둑이: It must be just you. Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco and Syria – all of them have some oil reserves. Lybia – there is no such country.

(V):

> Can you actually win a civil war?

Which bring us to the poiint: why did the Nato axis take sides in the Lybian civil war? After all, they ignored Bahrain and Yemen. They appeased Morocco's king, and for all the tough talk they do nothing about Syria. Is it just me or is Lybia the only country with oil in all the ones I mentioned.

lizrising: Can you actually win a civil war? Not saying the "North" won or the "South" lost, but.... country men are killing country men, families split, infrastructure ruined.

I mean.. In ours, the Roundheads won. Yet, soon enough the Crown was restored under Charles II.

Artful Dodger: Those sound like interesting books.

I am from the north but came to Atlanta for college. I think it's really interesting how the approach to teach some things here is different than it was there. For example, when learning about the Civil War, we were always taught that "we" were the good guys and "we" won that war. I had never heard it called the War of Northern Agression until I moved here. According to a friend of mine I was discussing this with, instead of "we won," the attitude taught in the schools here is more like "oh, it's not over!" The way they learn it here is probably more accurate!

As a side thought, as V pointed out, which God are we talking about?

Is it the Christian God (Jesus)? Certainly not the Jewish God (YHVH). Even less the Moslem God (Allah). Hindus have a bunch of gods. I might be confused to think whether it is Shiva or Vishnu.

Buddhists and Atheists have no God, so they don't count.

The Pledge of Allegiance was originally written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister in 1892. Louis A. Bowman, a chaplain for the Sons of the American Revolution, came up with the idea of "under God". He claimed to have taken it from the Gettysburg address. It was EisenHowar who officially added "under God" after church pastor George MacPherson Docherty convinced Eisenhowar that "under God" was missing in the pledge.

The trend seems clear. The pledge originated, evolved and was enacted as law at the bequest of Christian clergymen. The God in "under God" is the Christian God. In doing so the pledge establishes Christianity as religion. That is in opposition to the First Ammendment, but no lawmaker in the US is going to admit to that because they would be booted out of office by the 75% of Americans who are Christians.

Instead, compromises have been made. Children are not required to say the pledge, even if teachers yell at them that they are unpatriotic. People are required to stand, but they are not required to say anything, or to salute.

I am not a Christian or an American, but there is such a thing as respecting other people's beliefs. If I had to instruct my son, I would tell him to do what he believes is right, and if he disagrees with the pledge, to stand silently and respectfully. If a teacher gave him a hard time, I would go to the teacher and remind them that the law protects people's rights to not say the pledge.

"Prominent legal challenges in the 1950s were brought by the Jehovah's Witnesses, a group whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power other than God, ("Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom"1993 pgs 196-197) and who objected to policies in public schools requiring students to swear an oath to the flag. They objected on the grounds that their rights to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were being violated by such requirements."

It seems to me that they have a point. Is it right for a Christian to swear loyalty to a power other than God? After all, God is the one and only power in the universe. One thought from God, and the whole world would be reduced to dust.

This is one of the few things I agree with. Pledging allegiance to anything other than God seems rather a compromise of one's beliefs. Of course, the country could be renamed to the United States of Christianity. That would clear things up a bit and avoid unnecessary misunderstandings.

Artful Dodger: But implicit in such a term (in America) is loyalty to the USA. Just because the word "God" has been replaced by "Allah" (the one God) doesn't take out the loyalty implied by such a display. Would you get upset if the Jewish faith put up a sign saying "In YHVH we trust"?

Would YHVH offend? It shouldn't, yet some Christians in their "who's the better Christian" competition" would. Implicit though in the Jewish faith is more respect to the use of Ha-Shem.

Tuesday: 'He' being upset, as to say that 'He' would get upset over whether a name we humans made up is used or not used doesn't ring true. I would have thought Job and indeed Christ talking about turning the cheek or forgiving those who crucified his material incarnation (Jesus) would clarify that point.

"but taking him out of everything is going to leave us vulnerable."

How? We are not talking about statues of God's as per say..... the Greeks and Romans. Or (again as per say the Romans) "house Gods".