cossieuk

They have opted to pay for continued support . Well this is costly it gives another 3 years to spread the cost of upgrading to Windows 10. There is also the issue of software that may not run on Windows 10. We already have to use a virtual desktop running an older version of Windows for some software as that is a cheaper option than trying to make it work on newer versions of Windows. I just hope that when they do upgrade they go for the 64 bit version and then upgrade the PC's with more RAM as only having 4GB sucks

Not updated them according to this post, dated 05/02/2020 https://help.standingstonegames.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002036807-What-are-the-system-requirements-for-LOTRO- Also you can still use Windows 7 just without any updates, and businesses can pay for another 3 years of cover with the cost rising each year per computer. My company is still using Windows 7 and the only reason my department is getting an upgrade in the near future is that we have to access banking websites which will not work on Windows 7 in the near future.

Most of his videos are blocked in the UK at least on Youtube

With stupid comments like that, she would be a sure fit as a new Tory adviser https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51535367

If charities are so good, why dont we just let them run everything and scrap the government

Wasnt he banned from entering the USA after trying to use a friends passport because of his convictions for mortgage fraud

SO Mitt Romney is voting against Trump, this will mean that Trump will be the first President to have a member from his own party vote to convict them in an impeachment trial

That money was coming regardless of Brexit. Now we have stopped the payments to Brussels, when will we see that money. Also Brexit Britain is now following the Trump administration by banning journalists from Downing street briefings. At least all the journalists that were not banned had the decency to not attend the briefing https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-news-journalists-walk-out-no-10-briefing-a9314996.html

So when does the NHS start getting the £350 million a week

Still dont hate the person, hate the belief

I would say so, hate their beliefs but dont hate the person, they may not know any better, especially if they are surrounded by others who have the same beliefs

All societies have some restrictions on speech, even your beloved USA. Try walking into a cinema and yelling that there is a fire, when there isnt one and see what happens to you. Also civilised people do not hate people for something that they have no control over, ie skin colour, race, sexuality etc

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust". Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself". According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct. Does impeachment need a crime to have taken place, it would seem not

You dont think it would be an issue if people in an office were sitting around talking about how gay people are not human, and should not have equal rights, or that black people are sub-human. Hate speech has no place in a civilised society

I was just showing the stupidity of the argument by drawing the next logical step. Banning some speech is fine, ie hate speech, banning the discussion of speech in the office is a non starter. You could limit the time people can do it, my office is quite relaxed as long as the work is getting done.

So is the fact he has been impeached

Does impeachment necessitate a crime, I am sure that has never been fully tested and there are many who argue that no crime needs to take place for impeachment. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust". Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself". According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.

Stupidest comment of the year, however I would allow the banning of sports talk, not much in my office as most people don't follow any sport, as long as we can ban the chat about reality TV

Since you are too lazy to do it

You admitting you dont read peoples posts, but still reply to them, explains why you post so much shit

Not in the context that it was posted. The question came after a paragraph on the Democrats and a link to the Democrat nominees, and was following by naming a few. It was clear that the question was about the Democrats and you choose to ignore that and answer the question you wanted and then claim it is a legitimate answer.

Doro asked a question and you answered a different question but that Doro's fault. That is some real Trump logic

That may be a joke but I think it would take at least this many films to cover everything that happens in The Silmarillion.

Not sure this is a good defense strategy

Without him we would have missed out on so much of his fathers work.