Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by cossieuk

  1. 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

  2. 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 


  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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 

  6. 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.  

  7. 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

  8. 1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

    Now you understand why the US wants to build that wall.

    Not if they're illegal immigrants as they get most of the benefits (thanks to defrauding the system) and pay fewer of the taxes.  And they also get treated like slave labor, which causes other social issues from the displaced legal work force (at least in the US).

    I doubt many illegal immigrants are paying tax as tax is collected from your wages by your employer.  Fraud accounts for around 1% of the benefits bill in the UK so even if it was all done by illegal immigrants, which it is not, there would still be a net benefit in financial terms

  9. We were also told that proroguing Parliament had nothing to do with Brexit and now the same people as saying today's ruling is all about Brexit.  If proroguing Parliament was not about Breixt how can saying that proroguing being cancelled is about Brexit

  10. 12 minutes ago, Doro said:

    It was effectively 5 - 6 days, though. It was done over a recess period when the government wouldn't even be in parliament anyway for most of it.

    As far as I remember, there's nothing in the no deal law that says parliament must vote for it, only that Bojo has to formally request an extension. The EU could turn that down, or it seems Bojo has found a way around the wording of the article.

    How's about instead of resigning, the other parties can back a General Election? They're so up for democracy and think they know the will of the people, let us decide who should be PM. Methinks they're afraid of losing their seats.

    When in recess Parliament can be recalled, and the conferences can be cancelled, Labour has just cancelled the rest of theirs, so business can still be done.  Also proroguing  Parliament puts an end to any bill that is currently in the parliamentary process. unless the Government chooses to carry them over where as recess does not.  12 bills were stopped including one protecting the victims of domestic abuse and 5 bills for post-Brexit arrangements for immigration, fishing, trade and agriculture, only 3 bills were carried over.  The bills can be brought up again but all the work done is lost and they have to start again.  Why would the Government that is determined to leave come hell or high water stop bills that would be necessary for the first day after Brexit

    Benn’s Bill states that unless a deal is reached with the EU or Parliament approves a no-deal Brexit by October 19th, the Government would be required to write to the EU seeking an extension to the Article 50 period until January 31st 2020.

    The reason that the other parties wont back a General election just now is in case the Tories win a majority and can then pass a no deal Brexit by the 31st.  Why would they risk it when the bill they have passed would stop that from happening

  11. 27 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

    I honestly have't been paying attention to the Ukraine thing (just skimming a couple of articles), so I really need more info on that.  That said, from what I have skimmed through, the cursory read is that it's a whole bunch of Trump haters going after Trump (again), so I'm not likely to put much attention into something that will likely be forgotten in a month's time.

    The allegation is that Trump order $400 million of military aid to be withheld unless Ukraine investigated Joe Biden and his son.  Trump acknowledged that aid was frozen.

  12. 6 hours ago, Doro said:

    Now there's a fucking surprise.


    Supreme Court says a completely lawful proroguing of parliament was "unlawful" because they say it will stop ministers from scrutinising a Brexit deal. Bullshit. They had 3 years to scrutinise, and all they did was get in the way. That's why the Supreme Court wants them back, to keep up with all the fiddly little hurdles they can throw in the way of getting us to actually leave the EU experiment. Gotta keep those globalist masters happy.

    This was not a lawful proroguing of Parliament, it was unlawful as all 11 law lords have ruled

    This is Parliamentary Sovereignty in action.  We heard all through the referendum campaign that we had to take back our Parliamentary Sovereignty but now it is action it wrong.

    We have not had 3 years to scrtuinise a deal, there is currently no deal on offer as the one the May got is gone.  Boris is trying to get a new deal and if he does it will be for Parliament to scrutinise that.

    If Boris was honest about this only being about a Queens speech them he could have prorogued Parliament for the normal 5-6 days but he did it for 5 weeks to run down the clock on Brexit.  He has given unlawful advise to the Queen and should do the decent thing, which would be a first for him, and resign.  Hell he is still saying that the law says we must leave on 31st deal or no deal when only a few weeks ago a law was past to say that no deal can't happen unless Parliament votes for it and that he must seek an extension if they wont.  

  13. The biggest issue with electric cars is many people cant charge them up at home, it is not an option so they are not an option.  Until you can charged them up in seconds like a petrol car then they work for a large percentage of people.

    I only wish all the subsidies that have been put into electric cars and all the money spent putting up charging stations had been spend on getting hydrogen fuel cell cars on the road and putting fueling stations around the country as well 

  14. 11 hours ago, Amenhir said:

    Streaming a game you're bad at can be quite entertaining to watch.  However, I wouldn't expect someone like that to give out advice on how to play.  There is also that most important of components, personality, and she has none.  She's bad at the game, but she doles out advice like she's an expert.

    It really depends on if they know they are bad  at the game.  Many people thing they are good when they suck

  15. Given the large number of people already having to use food banks, an estimated 590,000 in 2016-2017, and the large number of people in fuel poverty, around 11.1% of homes in England in 2016 which is around 2.55 million people any policy that is going to increase them is just stupid.  


    Lets not forget 

    Medicine supplies will be "particularly vulnerable to severe extended delays" - Sorry folks that medicine you need it is stuck at the border 

    Possible clashes between UK and EU fishing vessels

    The possibility of urgent action to ensure access to clean water if there is a failure in the supply of chemicals - although the likelihood of this is considered "low" - Might be low but not work risking

  16. 8 hours ago, Doro said:

    It's not a lie, though. We paid around £18 billion to the EU before the rebate, and that's £350 million a week. The bus didn't mention anything about whether that was net or gross.

    The rebate is taken off what we are due to pay before we pay anything.  So we at no point ever sent £350 million per week.  Just like if you buy something that is on sale, you dont pay the full price then have them refund your money

  17. 34 minutes ago, Doro said:

    It wasn't a massive lie, though. We did send £350 million a week to the EU, and it would be nice to put some of that into the NHS. Where's the lie there?

    Except the £350 million figure is a lie.  It 2018 we paid around £13 billion to the EU, this is after the rebate which is deducted before we pay anything, this is £250 million a week.  In the EU spent around £4.2 billion in the public sector in the UK in 2018.  I can only find a figure from 2016 for what they pay to the private sector which is £2.3 billion, if we assume this is a average yearly amount then the UK has a net contribution of £6.5 billion or £125 million a week.  The figure was a lie which many people still believe.  

  18. 9 minutes ago, Doro said:

    1. There's multiple options for Leaving that they could put on there, but one option for staying, so immediately that's dividing up the opposition to the EU to make it easier for Remain to get a "majority" over the smaller groups.

    Multi question referendum.  First question, Leave or Stay.  Second Question, if leave then deal or no deal.  Second question only counts if first question gets leave

    14 minutes ago, Doro said:

    2. We've had three years of fear-mongering and anti-Brexit rhetoric, which is obviously going to impact a margin of people who are going to swallow that as though it was Brexit's fault, which is what the Remain crowd have been wanting all along. They want the false equivalency of delays and hysteria to be considered "Brexit", without it actually happening.

    We have had 3 years of lies about how once we leave everything will be so much better.  So many lies about the EU.  I hate that anytime anyone points out a negative about leaving the EU it is called scare-mongering.  The last 3 years have been about 2 sides shouting at each other and no body talking about the real issues about brexit.

    13 minutes ago, Doro said:

    3. At the very least, we need the results of the first referendum honoured, otherwise what's the point of it at all? Indefinitely delaying it and then overturning it would be a bigger nail in the coffin of democracy than a Queen's speech is.

    The referendum was advisory so there was never any need to follow the result.

    14 minutes ago, Doro said:

    4. When do we stop with referendums? Only when we get a Remain (or Re-join) vote that's considered acceptable to the establishment? Best of three? Five? Or do we simply have a referendum every few years forever because things change over 3 years and people might want something different?

    How about when we have a referendum where neither side breach electoral law.  Leading to a judge declaring that have the referendum being binding he would have had to overturn the result do the the illegal actions of the leave campaign.  Remember the bus with £350 million for the NHS which was a massive lie


    16 minutes ago, Doro said:

    I don't recall any mention on the ballot of "Leave (but only with a deal)", or any other stipulations. In fact, I don't recall much of the various Leave campaigns at all (outside of the sensationalised stuff that kept getting rinsed on the news for). I got a hell of a lot of pro-EU propaganda through the door, but then again my area is apparently considered a Labour stronghold so I guess they were trying to preach to the choir.

    Might not have been on the ballot, but the leave campaign constantly said we would get a deal.  No one was talking about no deal.  Many people have expressed since that they only wanted out with a deal

    I got little from either side, being in Scotland that is not really a surprise.

  • Create New...