Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

cossieuk

Members
  • Content Count

    3,746
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

Posts posted by cossieuk


  1. 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


  2. 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


  3. 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.


  4. 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.


  5. 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


  6. 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


  7. 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.  


  8. 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

  9. 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


  10. 12 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

    Oh, and it honestly doesn't matter what the UK thinks on this... as they're already an Islamic Caliphate.

    That is utter shite, you have absolutely no knowledge of the UK if you think that is true.  You really need to stop drinking the Trump Kool-Aid it has rotted your brain


  11. 1 hour ago, Amenhir said:

    If this does lead to war with Iran, it's going to backfire on Trump so hard his head will spin.  People will hold him directly responsible for causing war.

    That's tomorrows issue, today he has change the narrative


  12. 10 minutes ago, Amenhir said:

    Trump doesn't give a shit and neither do his cronies.  It's not their sons and daughters who will have to fight this war for the next twenty years.  I guess he's hoping that getting in a war will boost his popularity and secure reelection.  It sure would have been nice to be done with the last one first.  Well, fighting "wars" is an entirely a for profit endeavor at this point.  Not to profit the country, but the companies and boards of the companies who build all the fancy crap they use to kill people.  We need to justify the nearly one trillion dollar military budget.

    Its also a great way to distract from his impeachment


  13. 11 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

    With everything done on the WRX, it's actually closer to $50k, as you're factoring sticker cost alone, and not the warranty.

    Given the average new car cost in the UK is around £33500 which is around $44000 even at $50000 that is not that expensive.  The average new car price in the US is $36700

    To put things in perspective the average wage in the UK is £29500 ($39600) and in the US it is $47000.  

    So your car is about 1 years wage, where as the average new car in the UK is now than 1 years wage.  So I will say it again not that expensive


  14. On 12/16/2019 at 1:02 AM, Almagnus1 said:

     

    Let me show you a picture of my modded car, a stage 2, 2018 WRX:

    image.thumb.png.a66b0e1d0471ee4e59bebc713d4cfa41.png

    You don't own one of those without having the financial horsepower to afford the car and the mods.  And unlike your claims otherwise, it's one of the main reasons why I suspect I probably out-earn you.  Then again, I have no doubt you're going to claim this is all made up, because denying reality seems to be your "superpower".

    You can get a 2018 WRX STI for under £26000 (approx $34000), not really an expensive car even modded  with stage 2 costing around $3000.  Not that big a deal

×
×
  • Create New...