Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.
Hello all! This is just a quick reminder to ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere.
Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Ah, here. Did they read that from PULSE? Are we sure they didn't think we were asking them about 7,000 stolen firearms or how many breathalyser tests they ran?Cut to an interview on RTE yesterday with leading members of the AGSI and other Garda groups who have said that Garda? are wholly unprepared and have not got the necessary equipment and training to deal with it.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
What a load of cobblers.As for the openly-supportive of the IRA person, Corbyn, a good buddy of Mr Adams and well-known in republican circles here in UK for his support for the likes of the late Bobby Sands, who thinks that hamas is hard done-by, and that terrorists in action should not be shot where they stand, but reasoned with, I really can't think of anything more to say.
That photo you've swallowed is from 1995, by which time your government was in full-blown talks that led to the good friday agreement, so McGuinness wasn't just talking in the same room as Corbyn on one occasion, he was actively negotiating with number ten at the time.
I'll grant you I'm more likely to poke out my eyes with the pencil in the booth than vote sinn fein, but if it was a choice between them and johnson, at least I'd know I was being asked to choose between two peas in a pod.
On top of which, "terrorists should be shot where they stand" is not what the Shoot-to-kill policy means; "suspects should be shot where they stand" is what it means, and while the Met got it right this time, they've gotten it incredibly, tragically wrong in past instances, whether it's unloading ten shots into an innocent man's head on the underground or shooting a grandfather carrying a chair leg in the suburbs.
On top of which is the point that Corbyn and Johnson voted the same way on anti-terror laws in the last few years. An interviewer pointed out the written houses of parliment voting record on this to Johnson the other day. So you're not getting any different policy no matter which of them you choose anyway.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Yeah, but that's what makes life interestingYour taste of comedy and mine differ, by quiet a margin.
Hell, if I could ban anything I didn't find funny, we'd never have seen Steptoe and Son and Ben Stiller would be somewhere in a shallow grave wondering what just happened to him.
Those are the things Clinton was accused of (but despite a lot more than four investigations the accusations never proved to have anything worth a court case in them); but they're also the things Trump has been actually proven to have done...As opposed, and to take a leaf out your book on looking at the other side, to leaving men to die, lying about the reasons for it, "loosing tens of thousands of e-mails, having staff that did actually commit offences, keeping secure and secret info at home, loosing your blackberry, taking donations from groups associated to terrorists groups, having staffers that are related to groups raising money for terrorist groups, having your foundation under investigation for missing millions, etc, etc.
Nope, did that a few hours later.Yeah, she was a real winner. Hadn't even the manners to come out to thank her supporters after she lost.
So no, we haven't; we've been lied to by the TDs, but the referendum commission is prohibited from doing that by law (and they've been held to it). That little booklet that has to put both sides forward? The UK doesn't have that.Yes they were. It's the first time and not the last, and we had the same thing done to us, but still the result stood. Even the Tories said it would be honoured.
You don't have to be stupid to believe a lie.So as i said above they were either lied to or uninformed. IOW too stupid to understand?
But that's how societies change, for the most part. This just happens to be an extreme example because the margin is so slim and the timeframe so predetermined.So just let the oldies die off, and we'll get our way.
Put it another way; the people who voted to leave and then died don't have to pay the cost of their decision so why should others have to? How's that fair or just?
It's not ignoring. But there's nothing in the rulebook about saying "you can't ever vote on this again", not here and not there. If there was, it'd be monsterous. It'd mean society couldn't ever change its mind about anything, no matter what it learned after making a decision.Ignoring sections of society because their vote does not go with the desired outcome has another word. Rigged.
Yes, I completely agree.If 13 million people couldn't be bothered, or my personal favorite, didn't vote to make a point, then they are morons.
I just don't think that that bans you ever having a second vote on something.
And I wouldn't want it to.
Actually, you can. It's kindof a tenant of contract law. The UK said "stay in, we'll give you X". Then reneged on it. So the deal is off (this is a massive oversimplification but you see what I'm saying).And i'm sure those assurances included the fact the UK was in the EU, but unfortunately things change and you cannot throw the dummy from the pram because you don't like the changes.
But after London had given them assurances about the decisions they would make; and then London chose to break those assurances.The majority voted to stay and while they have devolved government, that meant they (whether knowingly or not) gave London the power to make decisions which would include them.
And now you have the entirety of Scotland voting to stay in the EU, and the SNP being voted into almost every seat of government they have; and it's kindof following from that that they'd want another vote.
And honestly, I kinda think that since we're Irish, we can't really begrudge them that, what with the whole war of independence and all
Oh come on, she's a damn sight more competent than any of the rest of them out there, she doesn't deserve to be called names over it.Alex Salmon left after loosing the vote and the "cranky" took over.
Yup. But by the same token, there's also no rule against voting again.Regardless of it's basis the leave won. There is no allowance for "we didn't know", or "nobody explained it to us well enough".
It's not, it's always best one out of one, but in this case, the leave side lied through their teeth, won by a very slim margin, and subsequently were shown to have had no plan for what to do in case they won. And the UK is now facing economic disaster (dragging us in with them unless we're very lucky) and possible partition of the UK. To say nothing of little things like throwing out the legal underpinning of the good friday agreement.If we allow voting to be redone because we don't like the outcome then what is the point. You're never going to please both sides and each side will have a reason for it to remain as it is, and the other for it to be changed.
It's not best two out of three and should never be.
This is one of those cases where I wouldn't mind seeing them go "Jaysus, what were we thinking? Let's not do that.".0 -
-
-
That is the public appetite. To see someone being made look foolish. It doesn't help when the "target" is pouring fuel on the fire.I don't know, but it sure looks like piling-on to me, not reporting.
Well you're not on your own.I'm not for that, or happy with it, but I don't know how to fix it. And I have zero interest in not voting because that just makes it easier on the sods.
That could very well be the case, but then it's a party wide failure to recognise that one of their leading figures (cause lets face it if it were some back bencher representing johnny bog land no one would care).There's a third option here: namely that she's genuinely ill
Look at Corbyn. Seen him at a rally on TV today and he looks ill, frail, and one thing caught my eye. He shook hands with the MC of the event, gave a finger tip shake, which is a pet hate, and then pulled (quiet hard) out of the handshake. The only thing missing was for him to wipe his hand on his trouser leg.
Optics will kill you in politics.
But you get the point. Pick any other topic and it's Trump this, Trump that. nothing about the actual illegality of those found to have committed crimes.Er, no.
Trump's Covefefe thing was in the media for two main reasons: one, it was funny and there's been precious little to laugh at over there (apart from the high-pitched Oh-god-we're-all-going-to-die kind of laughter, naturally).
Hate doing it, but as opposed to this picture of health (after which she disappeared for days):This from a guy who promised (in between the moon and the stars) on the campaign trail that he was in great health and had fantastic endurance for the work ahead.
Erm, nope.Meanwhile the investigation into Clinton did turn up something - no evidence of any wrongdoing. That's as close to "innocent" as they are legally allowed to determine
They say they could not prvoe intent which is afar cry from innocent.
And that only related to the e-mails.
You mean the same media machine that says Russia controls the US!!!!!Instead someone just says "oh, they didn't find evidence because she's so good at hiding it". FFS. If she was that good at hiding evidence, she'd have drycleaned Lewinski's dress.
I would think for you "top spots" (Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, etc, etc) you'd reserve a slightly larger budget to make sure they fup up.Yup. But there's only so many of them you can do that for before you burn out, it's only human.
Which MPs? Would like to read/watch that.Actually, yes. The UKIPers at any rate. And their nastier MP-shooting cousins.
That's my fault. Poorly structured question.In this case, all of the years. Meaning they were born there and were older than the UKIP eejits calling for them to "go back where they came from" (which was Birmingham in the bit I remember laughing at at the time).
What i'm asking is does nationality forgive view points. If someone is British/English, born there or lived for 40 years, but holds extremist views are they outside of the purview of accusation or scrutiny?
Hold on yerself.She *was* the better choice.
She hired the woman that was fired for manipulating votes away from Sanders.
Look at the investigations (multiple) into her, her dealings and her foundation. Look at the links i posted above in response to Grizzly. Look at the ties she has to middle eastern oil and businesses. Businesses that have direct and indirect links to terrorist groups or groups that raise money for terrorist groups.
She has built an empire, flip flopped on multiple political stand points and lied. The only difference between her and Trump is she had 40 years to learn the craft.
Don't get me started. Biggest "key rattler" i've ever seen.The only person who ever did better than her in the entire DNP was Obama, and even then he only managed it the first time round.
Again, where is the proof. I hear about the Russians doing this, the Russians doing that. Where is the proof. Everyone is talking like it's a done deal and all that is left is the impeachment.And that's before we even mention the russians and level playing fields.
No one has pointed at something and said "Here, here is the proof he done this".
Debbie Wasserman.There is simply no way that anyone the DNC had as a candidate (including Sanders) could have done better. She beat them all flat out in the primaries, and her per-state voting record beat the historical records of every candidate that the DNC fielded for the primaries.
You think thats unfounded or unfair?She's been absolutely hounded in the US media for so long .......
Considering all she has done, been accused of, and lied about. You think it's unfair?
People call him a racist, facist, etc. Show when he done this or displayed those features.The buffoon the electoral college put into office can't even finish a thought in a prepared speech, let along hold up his end of an argument. That's not something you want in a person with control over the military and the executive branch.
As for buffon, while i won't argue he won't win a nobel, what did he promise that Bill Clinton, Obama and others did not? The Wall, they all called for it, control on immigration, that too. How about the "muslim ban". Yup, they called for that too. How come all the snowflakes are not so upset that 16 muslim countries have bans on any Jews entering their country?
Oh while i'm on Nobel, why did Obama win it? No President has spent so many of their years in office at war as Obama. The prize was a mistake and an insult.
In his terms he incited/increased race tensions, made the police the enemy, invited terrorist styled movements to the white house, started or continued in multiple wars, failed miserably in foreign affairs (Syria), and Obamacare
Yeah, her secret service men can attest to that.She'd be someone you'd have disagreed with; he's someone who won't tolerate disagreement.
If more people had of laughed than complained would she have apologised.?That's daft. She stood up and said it was a mistake and apologised. That's owning it.
I think not.
No loss anyway. I' just surprised someone had the balls to sack her given the prevailing anti trump sentiment.
So someone stood up with a decapitated head of Obama? If not then it's not worse.But there was, and worse.
Yes, it's evident from their weekly TV show. Oh right, sorry, they don't have one, but she did and used it.The Klan were not particularly happy with the idea of a black president
Frankly she is of little concern to me as i find her unfunny and repugnant.Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads
If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.
Your Shooting Forum Moderator - Cass
0 -
Yeah, but just because the public wants to see Jeremy Beadle back on the air doesn't mean you make up slapstick during political reporting, that leads to some fairly dark laneways.That is the public appetite. To see someone being made look foolish. It doesn't help when the "target" is pouring fuel on the fire.
Yup, not disagreeing there.That could very well be the case, but then it's a party wide failure to recognise that one of their leading figures (cause lets face it if it were some back bencher representing johnny bog land no one would care).
Depends on who reports it though. If Corbyn stood up and mocked a disabled reporter, he'd be out of a job before he sat down; with Trump, the reporter gets demonised by Fox and Friends. When Abbot fluffs figures she gets called on it (and that's right), but when May is on tape as Home Secretary being told by Manchester police that her cutbacks will make it impossible to spot extremists planning attacks and she goes ahead with them anyway, she doesn't get anywhere near the level of gutting that Abbot gets for forgetting numbers. Hell, you had Met officers in London after the last attack saying on live national television that she was lying about policing figures in the press, but there's still not the same level of a kicking that Abbot or Corbyn got. It's just unbalanced.Look at Corbyn. Seen him at a rally on TV today and he looks ill, frail, and one thing caught my eye. He shook hands with the MC of the event, gave a finger tip shake, which is a pet hate, and then pulled (quiet hard) out of the handshake. The only thing missing was for him to wipe his hand on his trouser leg.
Optics will kill you in politics.
Hang on, she has pneumonia in that shot. Trump's health is down to him being in his 70s, eating like a 12-year-old at a buffet without adult supervision and actually believing that exercise is bad for you. He's cutting short foreign trips because he's exhausted in the first few hours according to official statements. And this is in the first hundred days or so, at this rate he's going to die in office from bad health alone.Hate doing it, but as opposed to this picture of health (after which she disappeared for days):
They're not allowed say they've proven someone guilty or innocent; only that they can go to court or there's no grounds to. They're the police, not the courts, if they could say guilty or innocent, why have judges at all?Erm, nope.
They say they could not prvoe intent which is afar cry from innocent.
And that only related to the e-mails.
Now the congressional hearings, they could have said someone was guilty or innocent; and they did, they cleared her of all wrongdoing.
No, I mean as in shooting a member of parliment (Jo Cox) during the brexit campaign.Which MPs? Would like to read/watch that.
No, but the UKIP lot weren't questioning their views, they were questioning their location on the ronseal colour swatch.What i'm asking is does nationality forgive view points. If someone is British/English, born there or lived for 40 years, but holds extremist views are they outside of the purview of accusation or scrutiny?
Firstoff, there's a shedload of stuff out there about her that just doesn't hold up or has "unnamed source" tagged to it:She hired the woman that was fired for manipulating votes away from Sanders.
Look at the investigations (multiple) into her, her dealings and her foundation. Look at the links i posted above in response to Grizzly. Look at the ties she has to middle eastern oil and businesses. Businesses that have direct and indirect links to terrorist groups or groups that raise money for terrorist groups.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements
Secondly, how can there have been both links and investigations into those links that say she did nothing wrong?
That's just wrong. They're not even in the same ballpark.The only difference between her and Trump is she had 40 years to learn the craft.
Politifact has it pretty well summarised in their summaries for each:
She's not perfect (find me one who is) but she's a damn sight better than Trump (but then so is most of congress and probably half the people in the US). Seriously, they've caught her telling fibs about 25% of the time. They've caught him telling the truth about 25% of the time. One of these things is not like the other.
You won't see the proof until they're in court. But what they have so far has seen a national security advisor gone inside the first hundred days for talking to the russians, senior white house staff like kushner apparently about to follow him for the same reason, public statements by everyone on these things, and hell, they are actually opening the bars early tomorrow so people can watch Comey's testimony live (that's 3pm our time).Again, where is the proof. I hear about the Russians doing this, the Russians doing that. Where is the proof. Everyone is talking like it's a done deal and all that is left is the impeachment.
This stuff grinds slow, but even so, it took years for watergate to get this far, Trump's gotten there so fast it's surreal.
No, they're doing that pretty regularly, but they're doing it the same way they did for nixon - starting with the people who did the dirty work and working their way up the chain.No one has pointed at something and said "Here, here is the proof he done this".
It's just that this time they're seeing in days what took months the last time around.
And by the way, that's just the russian thing. It's not like that's the only scandal attached to this guy, you actually need a cheatsheet to keep up with these things. Sexual assault (over the last forty years), scandals tied to the beauty pagents, lawsuits settled for $100 million over racist discrimination, mafia ties, the entire Trump University scandal, intimidation, bankruptcies, illegal immigrant workers being forced to work in substandard conditions, operating casinos illegally, antitrust violations, his staff assaulting people, SLAPP cases, refusing to pay workers all over the place, using political donations from the presidential campaign to buy his own book to push it up the bestseller lists, hiring models who had no visa to work in the US, and a half-dozen scandals surrounding the Trump Foundation ranging from "the IRS wants a word" to the most recent one of siphoning off cash donated to help kids with cancer.
And that's just the stuff they've turned up documents on, testimony on, or court cases on.
Yeah, but Sander's record in the south. Where Clinton won states comfortably where he never did well in what, thirty years of trying?Debbie Wasserman.
Yes. If she'd been found to have done something wrong like Bill Clinton was, then they'd have justification for it, but all you get with her is a series of "Hilary did X", an investigation and the investigation finding she didn't do X. Over and over. I mean, at some point you have to start asking why they keep putting the boot in with such relish.You think thats unfounded or unfair?
See, you say "done". Except if she'd done half of what she's accused of, she'd be in jail. Selling uranium to the russians, running paedophile rings out of pizza shops, taking donations for their foundation from ISIS, and on and on.Considering all she has done, been accused of, and lied about. You think it's unfair?
So, signing an executive order for a ban on muslims travelling to the US that was struck down in court as unconstitutional because he kept saying openly that it was a ban on muslims? That's a public domain case right there.People call him a racist, facist, etc. Show when he done this or displayed those features.
Facist? Pick a feature, it'll be on his twitter account (honestly, it'd be the funniest thing on that site if they hadn't actually given him the launch codes).
A general asshat personally? How about the latest one, where he's diverting money from a charity event to raise funds for children with terminal cancer into his own bank account, according to his own son. I mean, we could keep going but I need sleep at some time tonight The man is a dumpster fire.
Yup. See above on "I wouldn't agree with them".As for buffon, while i won't argue he won't win a nobel, what did he promise that Bill Clinton, Obama and others did not? The Wall, they all called for it, control on immigration, that too.
Mind you, they all changed their mind and rolled back those measures, and they didn't present them by calling all Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers...
Nope. You're thinking of a bill that listed several muslim countries that Obama introduced but it didn't ban them; it caused a six month delay as interviews were re-done. And it didn't carry exemptions for non-muslims from those countries.How about the "muslim ban". Yup, they called for that too.
Because the "snowflakes" don't live there, I'm guessing.How come all the snowflakes are not so upset that 16 muslim countries have bans on any Jews entering their country?
Yup. But at the time he got it for not being Bush and letting us hope things might get a bit less insane. I mean, seriously, George W Bush. It took Donald Trump to make him look like not the worst US president in history, and still to this day it looks like there's something wrong with the guy north of his shoulders.Oh while i'm on Nobel, why did Obama win it? No President has spent so many of their years in office at war as Obama. The prize was a mistake and an insult.
And lots of people did say that at the time (about Obama not having earned the Nobel that is).
That's like when your grandmother used to say you shouldn't go to the hospital because it'll just give you cancer. No, it's exactly like that. Blaming something that shows you a preexisting problem for causing the problem when it had been around a long, long time before that.In his terms he incited/increased race tensions,
No, I think they did that themselves by shooting the people they're supposed to protect and not prosecuting the police who did that. That's not even conjecture, that's been documented over and over and over and over to the point where you just want to build a wall along all their borders and then roof them in and forget about them. You can't see video after video after video of unarmed people being shot by police for no reason when they're not a threat - when they're literally lying on the ground with their hands in the air saying they surrender, or when they're twelve ****ing years old or when they're nurses trying to calm down mentally ill people, or any of the other cases that keep happening there.made the police the enemy
And they've been on that road since forever. They don't have clean hands here.
Yup. Same way previous presidents all did. I don't like it but at least it tends to end less horribly than when they go off and create them...invited terrorist styled movements to the white house
...though I'm not sure that'll work so well with that lunatic from the Philippines.
The foreign affairs stuff is right on and you missed the entire deportation thing and the reduction in checks and balances and more than a few others, but Obamacare is a big improvement on what was there before., started or continued in multiple wars, failed miserably in foreign affairs (Syria), and Obamacare
If it wasn't, the republicans wouldn't be hiding from their own constituents who are terrified of losing healthcare.
And this replacement they were talking about in the house was finally costed - it dropped nearly 30 million americans on the floor for healthcare access in the first few years and had nowhere near enough money set aside to pay for it.
I mean, if FG tried to bring in obamacare here, I'd be one of the first protestors on the streets because that **** is horrific by our standards, but we're used to the idea that if you fall and break a wrist, you get treated and you don't have the use of the wrist for a few weeks while you heal; in the US, that's between forty and sixty thousand dollars in debts and you get the bill in the first week unless your HMO agrees to cover it. It's like something from a Dickens novel, it's toxic.
No, they can say she's not nice.Yeah, her secret service men can attest to that.
They can't say she fired them purely for saying something they're explicitly allowed to say under US law. It's a massive difference.
No, of course not because that's how you tell if a joke's funny - if people laugh.If more people had of laughed than complained would she have apologised.?
I think not.
And Ted Nugent was running around calling for Obama to be lynched and hung and shot repeatedly for years.So someone stood up with a decapitated head of Obama? If not then it's not worse.
And he wasn't alone, this was 2008:
And that was happening all over the place. He was getting an average of 30 death threats a day for eight years, a rate 400% higher than his predecessors. For pete's sake someone was trying to build a dirty bomb to assassinate him with in '08.
But Nugent didn't earn the personal ire of the sitting US president, no matter how hard he tried. That's the difference.
She's not my cup of tea either, but when they start to string up the court jester, it's not good news whether or not you like his jokes. It's like when Biffo lost it over that nude portrait of him someone hung in the national gallery; yeah, it's not a fantastic joke, but you boo them if you think it's not funny, you don't arrest or persecute them.Frankly she is of little concern to me as i find her unfunny and repugnant.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVDyciOQCak
Advertisement