Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

cossieuk

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    3,629

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

Posts posted by cossieuk

  5. Posted · Report reply

    On 2/1/2020 at 9:02 PM, Doro said:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-funding-bill-enters-parliament

    And if you need to keep track: https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2019-20/nhsfunding.html

    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  

  9. Posted · Report reply

    1 hour ago, LasraelLarson said:

    a society that restricts speech, is NOT civilized.

    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 

  10. Posted · Report reply

    4 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

    I mean, that's nothing like a fishing expedition for an impeachment without an actual crime being committed just to cover up the corruption of Joe Biden, right?

    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

  11. Posted · Report reply

    19 hours ago, FundinStrongarm said:

    Banning "hate" speech is NOT fine. May as well ban the sports talk.

    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

  12. Posted · Report reply

    17 hours ago, FundinStrongarm said:

    I know you likely don't mean this but this is not a road you ought to go down. Banning speech is just pure bad.

    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.

  14. Posted · Report reply

    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.

  15. Posted · Report reply

    4 hours ago, Doro said:

    "Firms urged to crack down on office football chat"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51261999

    The unfortunately named Ann Francke, a person nobody has ever heard of before, has somehow managed to get on the radio and voice a retarded suggestion: companies should stop so-called "football banter" in the office. Why? Because women feel left out. Ignoring that lots of men also don't like sports, lots of women do like sports, and there's no suggestion to ban stereotypical female topics like shoes/handbags and what trashy telly was on last night, why the fuck does she expect people who aren't interested in a subject to have to feel included when said subject is discussed by other people? Fucking hell, these sorts of women give women who feel comfortable in offices a bad name. It's always got to be stepping on eggshells and trying to make women feel better in a space they shouldn't be in if they feel that way to start with. If you don't like football banter and can't bear other people talking about it, leave. Or do what I do and just tune it out. Much easier than trying to dictate speech AGAIN.

    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

  16. Posted · Report reply

    14 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

    i thought you said you already did the leg work?  is there a law or isn't there?

    i am going with no, unless you care to provide the link to what you claimed...  this is your claim, not mine.

    Since you are too lazy to do it

     

    Hours before the Senate embarked on President Trump’s impeachment trial, a nonpartisan federal watchdog agency unexpectedly weighed in on an issue at the heart of the case: the president’s decision to withhold military assistance to Ukraine.

    The agency, the Government Accountability Office, said the White House’s Office of Management and Budget violated the law when it withheld nearly $400 million this past summer for “a policy reason,” even though the funds had been allocated by Congress.

    The decision to freeze the aid was directed by the president himself, and during the House impeachment inquiry, administration officials testified that they had raised concerns about its legality to no avail.

    “Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the accountability office wrote in an opinion released Thursday. “The withholding was not a programmatic delay.”

    The law at issue, the Impoundment Control Act, was enacted in 1974. It limits a president’s power to withhold money that has been allocated by Congress, requiring approval from the legislative branch to do so.

    The accountability office is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. It conducts audits of federal spending, issues legal decisions on questions about federal contracts and budget matters and examines if federal agencies are complying with other legal requirements imposed on them by Congress.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/gao-trump-ukraine.html

  18. Posted · Report reply

    21 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

    So you're saying that this question:

    Can't be answered by:

    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.  

  23. Posted · Report reply

    3 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

    And yet, America is better off now than it was before, which vindicated choosing the Joker over the Penguin.  And you don't send in the Grandparents to deal with the Joker, you go find Batman - which the Democratic looks incapable of doing.

    So Trump is the Joker, a psychotic criminal, finally something that I agree with 

    • Like 1

  24. Posted · Report reply

    Trump is literally talking about doing things that would have him arrested and tried from war crimes and people are still defending him.  Just what does he have to do for the GOP to say enough is enough

×
×
  • Create New...