If you hadn't noticed he was fully dressed for worship. No doubt he is the elder of that community. He was never going to use the sword to attack anyone, if things got ugly everyone would protect him by sending him indoors. There is a difference between carrying a weapon for decoration and carrying a weapon with intent to use it.
Every time I watch that I laugh a little harder.
When someone is wrecking your neighbourhood just for shits and giggles, you'll change your tune. They are doing what the Police have been unable to do and it isn't the first time the UK and her Empire has depended on the might of the Sikh warrior. You'll notice the British Military (and Police force) allow them to wear turbans and not a helmet. This change of dress code goes back many many years (back when we fought in red coats) and was to keep them fighting for us. It seems history has a habit of repeating itself.
Sikhs carry their Kirpans for religious reasons at all times. In the UK/Canada they tend to carry a small blunt dagger, rather than the full length article. It is as important to their religion as the turban.
Maybe you should have read on a few lines.
The Military's role is to fight enemies of the state, the Police's role is to fight enemies of the people. When the Military are the Police, the people become the enemy of the state. It takes time to kit up enough police officers to tackle this sort of BS, officers from all over the country have gone down to London to help. And tonight there are 16k crushing skulls in London, so by this time next week expect 16k vacancies in the police force after they've all been sacked because of Labours ****ing stupid rules about policing riots. Which the Tories were too ****ing stupid to quash.
Sure the Military could have rolled out a few thousand soldiers in a couple of hours, but the Military are not trained to deal with this sort of role. They are trained to shoot to kill. Not to maintain the peace.
Can you guess what it is yet? I would take a photo of my die-cast/RC shelf, but I've been using it to store all sorts these days, so most of them are covered in dust and paperwork.
Would explain why I find it so easy to correct over steer. 
And the headline says 500, not 450.
The market is up and down all of the time though, a couple of days ago (or weeks, I lose track of time) it had climbed by 700 points. You didn't see massive headlines about it. Just keep your knickers on and your debts in order, then you have nothing to worry about.
The market is up and down all of the time though, a couple of days ago (or weeks, I lose track of time) it had climbed by 700 points. You didn't see massive headlines about it. Just keep your knickers on and your debts in order, then you have nothing to worry about.
I've had over and under steer from my van and I find I can control over steer more naturally than I can under steer. When you're going wind because of under steer, there isn't a whole lot you can do other than straighten the wheels and hope you don't run out of road before having another crack at the corner. With over steer, I found I naturally turn into the skid and control the situation without panicinc. I've under steered 4 times now, 1 was due to ice, 2 aquaplaning and 1 going into a corner way too hot for the tyres. Each time all I could do was take off some steering and just hope for the best.
It is about time they uploaded the official video. The TS copies suck balls.
Oh for sure, as I mentioned, if you're getting killed saved the lives of the guys with you, that is heroic. But the vast majority of IED victims have died in vain.
If everyone who steps on a mine is a hero does that mean that a local Afghan who steps out of his house in the morning is a hero after he steps on an IED? No, it means he was unlucky.
Signing up and choosing to put your life in danger is bloody brave in itself (although a lot of guys I've spoken to only did it because they left school without qualifications and just wanted the pay cheque), but how you die isn't automatically heroic because you're a serving soldier.
I imagine it is a twist from "they are fighting for their life" although I'm not sure how much fighting is involved and just sheer luck that your body doesn't go into shock or reject the procedure. It then twisted into "they are battling [namehere]". Because war, that is a great analogy to use for cancer. Or you'll read head lines like "heroic feather/mother of x fights [insertillnesshere]." Where is the hero there? They are hoping they get lucky and don't die yet.
I've never understood the way language is used in a lot of cases like this. Like guys who get blown up by an IED in Afghan, they were unlucky bastards, but how are they heroes? Stepping on a trip wire isn't heroic. The poor SoBs who have to attempt and save their buddy while taking part in a fire fight, that is heroic. I don't want this to sound like I don't have respect for the guys who go out there, because I have nothing but respect for them. But by stepping on a mine you're not a hero.
Now if you saw a grenade land at your feet and the choices were you jump on it and save the lives of everyone else, or jump behind a wall to save your own skin and you jumped on the 'nade. That is a hero.
I've never understood the way language is used in a lot of cases like this. Like guys who get blown up by an IED in Afghan, they were unlucky bastards, but how are they heroes? Stepping on a trip wire isn't heroic. The poor SoBs who have to attempt and save their buddy while taking part in a fire fight, that is heroic. I don't want this to sound like I don't have respect for the guys who go out there, because I have nothing but respect for them. But by stepping on a mine you're not a hero.
Now if you saw a grenade land at your feet and the choices were you jump on it and save the lives of everyone else, or jump behind a wall to save your own skin and you jumped on the 'nade. That is a hero.
Gandhi liked sex with young children (10-12), but the argument was always "that is normal for the area/time". Hardly a good argument if he is a great moral leader. He also had a huge thing for enemas. He felt that daily flushes cleansed the soul.
I've had a pretty rough oil leak for a few months (losing 1ltr of oil a month), I'd replaced the cam cover gasket twice but it still leaked, so I cheated and got some of this. Leak sorted.
Treatable is no bother, if it is actually treating the cause and not just hiding symptoms, which a lot of medication does, but that is a whole other debate about how pharmaceutical companies are massive dicks. But lets say Canavan's Disease, if you knew you had the genes that give you a high probability of a child being born with it, you're selfish for taking that risk because it isn't just your life you're gambling with.
Now you're taking what I'm saying out of context. What I said is us as individual humans should widen our search for a partner, rather than sticking to a very narrow search band which means you're more than likely quite closely related to the person you breed with.
Now you're being silly. Although there is a point where old people who have no life due to various illnesses, shouldn't be forced to suffer on to their death bed. If your pet dog became a vegetable, you'd put it down in a heart beat because it is the humane thing to do. But with a human you'd just leave them in a nursing home to slowly die.
I draw the line at if a disabled person is unable to successfully able to take care of their own child, they shouldn't be allowed to have one. Or if the genetic abnormality will cause the child excessive suffering. So being a dwarf for example, wouldn't fall into the category. as you can still happily raise a child.
On the same subject, if you know there is a high risk you'll give birth to a child with a genetic disorder which would permanently disable it and/or lead to an early death, you shouldn't be allowed to then either.
There is a simple solution to this though and that is to deepen the gene pool. As it stands you can wade through the gene pool in most countries because people interbreed. This leads to genetic mutation which caused a lot of the problems in the first place.
When you're unable to take care of a child because your "right" to a child means it is dependent on the state, you become drain on the public purse.
On the same subject, if you know there is a high risk you'll give birth to a child with a genetic disorder which would permanently disable it and/or lead to an early death, you shouldn't be allowed to then either.
There is a simple solution to this though and that is to deepen the gene pool. As it stands you can wade through the gene pool in most countries because people interbreed. This leads to genetic mutation which caused a lot of the problems in the first place.
When you're unable to take care of a child because your "right" to a child means it is dependent on the state, you become drain on the public purse.
Last edited by P5YcHoM4N, .
Of course, link to the Nazi's in an attempt to prove a point, because no other country has tried it have they? I realise it will always be a controversial subject, but where I used to live there was a care home of sorts for seriously damaged people, most were in their 20s and several were pregnant. Now they weren't capable of looking after a child because they were under 24 hour care already.
Another child which will have to be raised by the state, which will damage them in itself.
Human rights don't exist, you get human privileges. When you murder someone, you lose your human privileges.
When you have a horrific genetic defect, you shouldn't procreate. It just creates more people born with horrific genetic defects. Of course I am also an avid believer of euthanasia. Use some of that humanity you show your pets on humans.
I'll see you in hell then, because I clicked agree on that too.
The Dalai Lama was born into a culture that turns the peasants into slaves, through the Chinese invading and taking the area, the peasants are now able to get paid for their work.
Please, tell me how that is a bad thing and how the Dalai Lama is seen as some hero in the West? Oh yes, that's right, he doesn't like China, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "the lesser of two evils"? Bollocks to that, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend and the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46
This test could have done with some "neutral" options, as a few places I wasn't for or against an argument. I am also more left wing than I thought, I've always put myself as slightly right wing.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG