niggaz is wearing ice dats not fake

mine is real && yours aint

He is also reported to be currently in the process of suing the News of the World regarding the mobile phone hacking scandal. Katie Price is reported to have separated from her husband, because she believes that he is not the man she married and George Osborne is reported to blame the weather for the decline of the British economy. If you want me, I’ll be in the field shoveling shit. And that’s true that is.

It’s part of the BBC’s remit to provide a lucrative habitat for some fairly repulsive cultural relics. They’ve been doing it for the Monarchy and Church of England for decades. Providing the same service for redundant, golf club bores on Match of the Day is second nature.
And if anyone thinks it’s about to stop, then think again. One of the BBC’s most lucrative little reptiles is the repulsive Jeremy Clarkson. With his quasi-mullet, ridiculous paunch and undersized ‘Brian May’ jeans, the repellent clown continues to profit from providing a leering caricature of 70′s style, suburban sexism to commissioning editors.
So we can look forward to more of the same. Society may have moved on, but it’s still a round of golf with Tarby and trebles all round at the BBC.

To me it’s the circus part of ‘Bread and Circuses’ and that’s all it is…something that makes working class people read the papers back to front…And get more passionate over it than their own working and social conditions. The best footie is played in the park with your mates- no season tickets, no over-priced strips, or players, or cops herding you like cattle…I realise that this is a slightly unpopular opinion to hold…

The increasing ­tendency for the BBC to interview its own reporters on air exacerbates this mindset. Instead of ­concentrating on interviewing the leading players in a story or spreading the net wide for a range of views, these days the BBC frequently chooses to use the time getting the thoughts of its own correspondents. It is a format intended to help clarify the facts, but which often invites the expression of opinion. When that happens, instead of hearing both sides of a story, the audience at home gets what is, in effect, the BBC’s view presented as fact.

Edward Miliband, by contrast, has fought and won an election to become his party's leader. But, like Mr Brown, he is not approved by whatever media coven it is that decides who is and is not fit to be Prime Minister (the same coven once rejected William Hague, too, though now it slobbers sycophantically at his feet). So his election is not deemed to count. It was won, they say, thanks to the trade unions. Let us leave aside the interesting question of whether the trade unions should have any say in the choice of the leader of the Labour Party, founded to advance their interests. I still have news for those who claim to be outraged by this. Mr Blair, whom they loved so much, also won the Labour leadership thanks to the trade unions, whose leaders fixed it for him from the start. So that can't be it, can it? Anyway, what really won it for Edward Miliband was his frank willingness to say unequivocally that the Iraq war was wrong. Anyone who has the faintest understanding of the Labour Party grasps that whoever was prepared to do this would have been almost certain to win the leadership against whoever was not, all other things being equal.

إدارة الشعب لا تقهر

I do not think that one can talk sensibly of a public and private morality any more than one can of a public or private highway. Morality is a sphere in which there is a public interest and a private interest, often in conflict, and the problem is to reconcile the two. This does not mean that it is impossible to put forward any general statements about how in our society the balance ought to be struck. Such statements cannot of their nature be rigid or precise; they would not be designed to circumscribe the operation of the law making power but to guide those who have to
apply it..

A third elastic principle must be advanced more tentatively. It is that as far as possible privacy should be respected. * * * The police have no more right to trespass than the ordinary citizen has; there is no general right of search; to this extent an Englishman's home is still his castle.

Doing it so much


I am a verb

And if Facebook is a poor decision, what is the best way to transition into a phone number from someone you met in person and only have their Facebook info? (and no, using the phone number on their profile is definitely not acceptable).

Pick a local issue. Book a room in a well-known local building. Better still, just occupy the place anyway. Put up notices everywhere, hold your meeting and proceed from there. Remember: no law is valid if it lacks popular consent. Do the authorities lack credibility? Did they lie to the electorate? Did they gain power through electoral fraud? Then don’t just confront them with demands - take action in their place. That’s what Peoples’ Assemblies are for. Don’t hate the media - BE the media! Don’t hate the law - BE the law!

Mr Bone, how dare you suggest the hoi polloi take physical action to defend their lives and dignity? Violence actually works, and is therefore exclusively reserved for nicking other peoples oil, protecting rigged markets, ensuring the public stays in line, shooting uppity foreigners, and otherwise maintaining the corporate and Parliamentary kleptocracy that manages UK Plc. Non authorized usage is likely to lead to outrage in the Guardian, crisis in the financial markets, freedom for the general population and fewer SUVs with personalized number plates.

Makin silly P

I go on mad holz

just for the lolz now

your game is mad off

bernie madoff

Exiled from the blogosphere.

Brought before the inquisition.

My charge?

It’s blasphemous how on point my shit is.

Deuces to the LES.

Trading open bars for open skies.

One last round of LOLZ and Mexican Cokes with the squad?

Nah.

No goodbyes this times.

Peaced out quicker than Draper with a jumpoff.

I’ll confess.

Asked my barber to come with.

Dude’s post-modern Civil War reconstruction carpetbagger swag is still an inspiration.

A kind of Woody Allen comedy but without the jokes. Lots of cultural signifiers to make ivy league couples on a date feel at home, but totally lacking in substance. There could have been more from the supporting cast, several more opportunities for a string of self-deprecating subtle jokes were missed, and I was left hoping that as Zooey Deschanel walked off from the park bench at the end she strolled carelessly into a fast moving bus.

Did she say 'hey' instead of 'hi'? 'Cause you know that means she's a lesbian.

We made an informed democratic decision to get back on heroine as soon as possible

"Only an idiot can choose to believe something. To select your beliefs on the basis of what you'd like to be true like some sort of pick 'n' mix is ridiculous. For a belief to be rational, there must be some persuasive reason to support it. Faith, by definition, lacks that vital evidence which is why I cannot 'choose' to have it."

The problem with this reply sir is that you assume the meaning of the word 'belief' to be completely transparent , when it most certainly is not. For the sake of explanation consider the word 'true'. Here are three assertions that utilise the word 'true':
1) The claim 2 + 2 = 4 is true
2) It is true to say that there are 2 cups on my table
3) Peter Hitchens is a true Englishman
The word true has a slighly different meaning in each statement. The first concerns semantics and is a necessary truth. The second is a contigent truth concerning circamstances. The third is an appraisal and does not easily fall under either of the previous two categories.
Similarly, the words rational and belief can be plausibly used in more than one way. Consider the following statements:
1) It is rational to believe proposition x, if and only if x is self evident or follows as a matter of deductive logic from already known propositions (self-evident or deduced from self-evident).
Philosophers have been debating 1) for centuries without apparent resolution.
2) It is rational to believe empirical claim x provided there is much evidence supporting it.
Anyone that endorses Karl Popper's philosophy of science must reject 2), although common sense would seem inclined to defend it.
3) It is rational to believe that x is true provided it explains a state of affairs no worse than competing explanations and for which there are practical reasons for its endorsement which competing explanations lack.
I interpret our host as endorsing 3) for religious belief. If I am correct, then the notion of choosing a rational belief is not ridiculous in context. One might disagree with the reasons that our host gives, but they are not obviously absurd.