Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

cossieuk

Members
  • Content Count

    3,571
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

Posts posted by cossieuk


  1. 11 minutes ago, Doro said:

    Yup, traitor Letwin has succeeded in fucking the country over. Here's hoping the EU reject the extension request. The irony that our democracy now rests on the decision of the very organisation we want to leave, because our own MPs have chosen to once again put the UK through months of uncertainty for no reason at all. Hang the lot of them.

    MPs wanting to actually scuritinise the deal is not a bad thing in any way.  Time must be given to see what MPs are being asked to vote for.  Letwin is actually pro Brexit.  He just wants to have a deal.  We were told Brexit was about Parliament taking back control, well Parliament has spoken, now Johnson must comply with the law or we may as well shut down Parliament  


  2. The Letwin amendment has passed, so Johnson must but law sent a letter by 11 pm tonight.  He is saying he will not negotiate an extension and the BBC is reporting that an unnamed source in the Downing Street says the PM will not ask for an extension.

    Surely if by 11 pm tonight he has not sent the letter he will have to be prosecuted for breaking the law.  In that case he would surely have to resign as PM


  3. So now Gove and Raab are giving assurances that if we have no trade deal done by the end of 2020 we will leave with no deal.

     

     

    So even voting for this deal means there is a chance of no deal and I suspect that many Tories would be happy for this to happen and may even attempt tp make this happen by ensuring that no trade deal is reach, which would not be hard given that it took 7 years for the EU to get a deal with the US

    Also Oliver Letwin has an amendment that will ensure that we get an extension even if the deal passes tomorrow.  This will ensure that there is sufficient time to pass the necessary legislation to leave and again ensure that the clock is not run down forcing a no deal Brexit


  4. 3 minutes ago, Doro said:

    No, because the surrender bill doesn't specify succeeding in getting an extension. It just says that the letter must be sent as written. Asking outside of that letter to not get an extension doesn't frustrate that the letter was sent as the surrender bill demands. That's the loophole.

    The Benn act is to ensure that we dont leave on the 31st unless Parliament votes to do so

    From the article I linked

    So, in the context of Brexit, where there is now the Benn Act obliging the Prime Minister to seek an extension of the Article 50 period so as to avoid a No Deal Brexit, this principle means:

    a minister cannot send a side letter to the European Union saying that the UK does not really want an extension and asking EU to reject the application

    the government cannot use delegated or secondary legislation (or Orders in/of Council) to rob the Benn Act of effect

     

    There is no way this is not going back in front a the courts on Monday


  5. 29 minutes ago, Doro said:

    There's a loophole, though. The surrender bill only states that the government must ask for an extension in the exact wording of the letter, not that it must secure an extension. There's nothing that says there can't be an accompanying text stating that this letter needs to be accepted under specific grounds, and those grounds could easily be termed as unacceptable in some form to the EU in order to prevent them accepting an extension. The government could just outright say "this is a letter we have to send because of the surrender bill, but in all honesty we don't actually want it" and it would still be following what was put into place to try to overturn democracy.

    Actually the Padfield Principle does not allow ministers to do someone or not do something that frustrates and act of Parliament.  Writing the letter and then saying to ignore the letter frustrates the Benn act .


  6. 59 minutes ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

    If a women doesnt want a child then she should use a fucking pill . 

    This is not always an option for some women as they have adverse reactions to the pill, but where possible I agree women have a role in using contraception.  Sadly there are large parts of the US that is against contraception and go out of their way to make it hard for both men and women to get easy access to it.

    • Like 1

  7. 5 minutes ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

    If technology one day allows growing babies in vats i guess that would be one way to solve this problem,but in that case i would support " mother " loosing any right to that child after " turning into human " .If you didn't want it inside you,you don't any right to it afterwards .

    Irony is that " pro-choice " movement completely ignores and discriminates against other gender .How about you give man right to " financial abortion " - if a man doesn't want that child he shouldn't be forced to pay child support ( and sure in that case take away his right to ever see that child ) .

    If women decides that she wants a child - man is a financial slave .

    If man wants that child and women doesn't - he can fuck himself .

    Doesn't seem very " equal " right ?

    If a man doesnt want a child then he should use a fucking condom. 

    • Like 1

  8. 21 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

    Pathetic... 

    If you're going to shill (and lie) for Biden, at least own it.

    And yet, this exact behavior is why I will vote Trump, because fuck you that's why. 

    I have never understood the idea of voting for someone just because it pisses other people off.  Surely having someone that knows how to do the job is better that someone that is a laughing stock.

    As for what Biden did or didnt do, investigate him, but lets not pretend that we should ignore what Trump did because someone else may have done the same thing in the past

    It should also be noted that the investigation in the company the Biden's some worked for focused on a time period before he got the job and he was never under investigation


  9. 21 hours ago, Amenhir said:

    The reporting says that this second whistle blower actually has first hand knowledge of the call.  They can't use the whole hearsay argument to deflect.  I honestly believe that Trump is so stupid that he could very well have stated directly that an investigation would help his reelection.

    The hearsay argument is flawed

     


  10. 1 hour ago, LasraelLarson said:

    what specifically would constitute proof?  where exactly is the goalpost, or is it better to remain undefined in case shifting is required...

    Perhaps a transcript of a call where he is asking a for dirt, or maybe texts between officials stating that aid is linked to an investigation.  Just spit-balling here


  11. 38 minutes ago, Doro said:

    It was 100% The Thick of It, but you'd think by now they'd at least fill their staff with some normal people who don't give a shit about this sort of nonsense, instead of these constant scheming micro-manipulators focusing on such low-level deceit.

    What makes it so much worse is that the next time he has a reusable mug, people will just think he is only doing it for the photo, which he will be.  I doubt the press would care if he had just used the disposable one.  This could be his bacon sandwich moment 

    5bbf73de1f0000a1022594b9.jpeg?cache=dgGy


  12. 34 minutes ago, Papi said:

    Racist?  What an asinine thing to say.  If someone takes the position that helping prevent the killing of children at a public school is a priority for them over gang on gang violence that, in no way, makes them a racist.  It probably just makes them a parent.  Or, I don't know, human.  

    Not a parent, but I am an uncle, and I dont know how I would cope if my nieces and nephews had to plan for school shootings.  I cant imagine how a parent must feel.

    All gun violence is an issue but dickheads shooting other dickheads is less of a priority then stopping mass shooting in schools, shopping malls etc


  13. 53 minutes ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

    And why should someone be informed how i spend my money on things i want .

    I assume you have an issue with having to register your car with the DMV

     

    54 minutes ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

    Did real wonders in stopping truck attacks in Europe right ?

    Nothing will stop all tragic events.  N o one with any common sense thinks that it will.  

     

    55 minutes ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

    From government and people who are so convinced in their own moral high ground they would use force to make me live according to their ideas .

    You really think your gun will stop the Government if the wanted you dead.  In a fight between the the US military and the US civilian population my money would be on the military.  They could take you out with a drone any there is nothing you could do to stop them.

    57 minutes ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

    And don't make this sound as some unique USA thing,there are many people around the world that understand that gun rights = human rights .

    And yet the US leads the way in mass shootings by quite some margin.   Gun right ≠ human rights, all over the world.  There any many countries that dont let people have guns and they live in open and free countries, where kids go to school without the free of being shot

    Also gun control ≠ taking guns away.  In the US there is already some level of gun control in place, ie getting a fully automatic gun has restriction, dont think you are allow a rocket launcher

    5 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

    The other thing is that by having the populace well armed, it protects us from external invasions

    Name 1 time in the last 100 years where guns in the hands of civilians has stop an external invasion


  14. 1 hour ago, Doro said:

    His PR team's concern? Whether or not he should be seen holding disposable cups. It's a circus. It's a system built on petty squabbles, tit for tat, and one-upmanship and would take a complete overhaul to correct.

    To be fair the clip war really funny, he looked like a kid being told he cant have coffee cause he is not old enough 


  15. 3 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

    IMO the Senate made the right call on both of those as they are completely counter to the US gun culture.  I mean, the point of the House and Senate having to both sign off on legislation, before it goes to be signed into law by the President, is to have one prevent the other from doing dumb stuff, and that dumb stuff becoming law.  That's why the President can veto legislation, and the veto can be overridden so a law can come into effect despite having a president that's being an idiot.

    That said, I completely understand where someone would not be very happy with the Senate doing this, while I look at it as the system working as it should.

    The Senate hasn't done anything, McConnell wont put the bills to the Senate to be voted on.  If the Senate did vote and voted them down, then fine you could say they did their job but to not even given then the chance is wrong.  No one person should have that level of power.

     

    1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

    If you actually look at the statistics... most of the gun violence is generally gang related, and almost always caused by handguns.  Then there's a really big part of the gun violence that's suicides.... which again is handguns.  Both statistics get lumped into the gun violence figure depending on how bad the source wants to make the problem appear.

    How does creating gun reform for assault rifles affect this issue?

    So because you cant solve all of the issues you dont do any thing at all.  That is just a stupid idea.  Surly doing something to try and tackle the high levels of mass shootings is worthwhile.  No kid should every have to go to school and have a drill for what to do in the event of an active shooter.

    If you want to drive a car you need to take lessons and pass a test.  Then you need to have insurance, and register the car with the government, but to have a gun you dont need to do any of that, you can go up to some guy in a pub and buy his and no one is ever informed that you now own a gun.  How is this acceptable.

    As a Brit, I dont get the obsession with guns, it is not a way of life here.  I get that in the US it is different, but I have never heard a good argument for owning an assault rifle, that can be converted to fully automatic firing, and fitted with magazines holding up to 100 rounds.  Just who are you trying to protect yourself from.  


  16. 40 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

    Please link the exact legislation (and not "news") articles where this has happened.  While I'm suspecting it's stuff like the garbage fire Green New Deal, which if that's the case, McConnel did us all a favor by letting it die.  However, if you can find the actual legislation so we can read what was proposed and draw our own conclusions (rather than being told what to think), that would be an interesting find.

     

    Here is one https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8

    and another https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1112/text

×