Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
I can feel your anger and maybe Hyufd would be wise to bead my post.
Shouting is unnecessary
Sometimes a more forceful response is needed to get a point across, in my view that was one of them
No it was not and you provoked an immediate angry response.
I hope you do not want to be seen as hectoring and arrogant but that was my immediate reaction.
Kle4 is a very interesting poster on here and deserves respect even if you do not agree with him
Did I post anything personally disrespectful? No. Do I get annoyed about people continuing to suggest a vote on a transition period and withdrawal agreement can be equated to a vote on the final deal? Yes.
I do not particularly care what anybody on this blog thinks about me personally, I don't come here to make friends but to express my views and pick up political news, although I do try and avoid getting personal and stick to political argument
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Are you OK Kle4?
Merely responding in kind. If someone wants to get all ALLCAPS when high handedly correcting someone in patronising fash the foot.
And believe me, I know all about undermining one's own superior attitude.
Edit: But it is probably a good sign to call it quits for the day. Although seriously, calling people out for linguistic inexactitude is hardly strong anyway, and do so entirely incorrectly?!
If you really cannot cope with forceful expression (not personally rude) on this blog then I suggest you take a break
That is wholly unjust. Grow up
It was not me swearing in my post, is all I will say, if some people cannot handle a more forceful expression (not personally rude), tough
No poster on here should tell another to have a break
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Are you OK Kle4?
Merely responding in kind. If someone wants to get all ALLCAPS when high handedly correcting someone in patronising fash the foot.
And believe me, I know all about undermining one's own superior attitude.
Edit: But it is probably a good sign to call it quits for the day. Although seriously, calling people out for linguistic inexactitude is hardly strong anyway, and do so entirely incorrectly?!
If you really cannot cope with forceful expression (not personally rude) on this blog then I suggest you take a break
That is wholly unjust. Grow up
It was not me swearing in my post, is all I will say, if some people cannot handle a more forceful expression (not personally rude), tough
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Are you OK Kle4?
Merely responding in kind. If someone wants to get all ALLCAPS when high handedly correcting someone in patronising fash the foot.
And believe me, I know all about undermining one's own superior attitude.
Edit: But it is probably a good sign to call it quits for the day. Although seriously, calling people out for linguistic inexactitude is hardly strong anyway, and do so entirely incorrectly?!
If you really cannot cope with forceful expression (not personally rude) on this blog then I suggest you take a break
That is wholly unjust. Grow up
It was not me swearing in my post, is all I will say, if some people cannot handle a more forceful expression (not personally rude), tough
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Brexit's getting to us all. I say nuke the East Coast and be done with it
I say we nuke it from orbit - it's the only way to be sure
You can't make that kind of decision. You're just a grunt!
Uh, no offense.
None taken
using that quote makes you into "Burke" (the slimeball). At least I get to be Ripley
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Are you OK Kle4?
Merely responding in kind. If someone wants to get all ALLCAPS when high handedly correcting someone in patronising fash the foot.
And believe me, I know all about undermining one's own superior attitude.
Edit: But it is probably a good sign to call it quits for the day. Although seriously, calling people out for linguistic inexactitude is hardly strong anyway, and do so entirely incorrectly?!
If you really cannot cope with forceful expression (not personally rude) on this blog then I suggest you take a break
That is wholly unjust. Grow up
It was not me swearing in my post, is all I will say, if some people cannot handle a more forceful expression (not personally rude), tough
No poster on here should tell another to have a break
I will certainly concede I was the one who swore, and people are free to make of that what they will by all means as I will be the first to say it is usually unnecessary - but the idea I have a problem with tough expression is risible, and a very obvious attempt to shift focus from an error of judgement in being mistakenly condescending to criticising the response to that very silly mistaken condescension. It was the attempt to patronise in a superior fashion (for no reason, since the major point was not in contention) by implying I had said something i had not, when using the same terminology that was then criticised. Forceful expression is not the same thing as being foolish (and getting uppity about use of the term 'deal' when used by the person getting uppity in the same fashion is, I would argue, objectively foolish). And the idea refusing to concede on any point even when provably incorrect as in this case is being grown up or tough is, sorry to say, an awfully childish thing to believe.
Bottom line, whatever rudeness is inflicted in response, if you want to get ALLCAPS condescending, don't be guilty of the same terrible terminological mistake you want to get condescending about. It's like critiquing someone's grammar - if you are going to do it, at least be correct. No that doesn't make any response ok, carte blanche is not offered, and as I say people may judge me for that as they wish, but neither does it erase the silliness that provoked it.
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Brexit's getting to us all. I say nuke the East Coast and be done with it
I say we nuke it from orbit - it's the only way to be sure
You can't make that kind of decision. You're just a grunt!
Uh, no offense.
None taken
using that quote makes you into "Burke" (the slimeball). At least I get to be Ripley
No poster on here should tell another to have a break
I will certainly concede I was the one who swore, and people are free to make of that what they will by all means as I will be the first to say it is usually unnecessary - but the idea I have a problem with tough expression is risible, and a very obvious attempt to shift focus from an error of judgement in being mistakenly condescending to criticising the response to that very silly mistaken condescension. It was the attempt to patronise in a superior fashion (for no reason, since the major point was not in contention) by implying I had said something i had not, when using the same terminology that was then criticised.
Bottom line, whatever rudeness is inflicted in response, if you want to get ALLCAPS condescending, don't be guilty of the same terrible terminological mistake you want to get condescending about. It's like critiquing someone's grammar - if you are going to do it, at least be correct. No that doesn't make any response ok, carte blanche is not offered, and as I say people may judge me for that as they wish, but neither does it erase the silliness that provoked it.
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Brexit's getting to us all. I say nuke the East Coast and be done with it
I say we nuke it from orbit - it's the only way to be sure
You can't make that kind of decision. You're just a grunt!
Uh, no offense.
None taken
using that quote makes you into "Burke" (the slimeball). At least I get to be Ripley
Nope. You are Hicks repeating Ripley's words.
God I love that film.
Sgt. Sunil: Alright, sweethearts, you're a team and there's nothin' to worry about. We come here, and we're gonna conquer, and we're gonna kick some, is that understood? That's what we're gonna do, sweethearts, we are going to go and get some. All right, people, on the ready line! Are ya lean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: Are ya mean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU?
PB Tories: Lean and mean!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU? RobD! TSE! Get on the ready line, PB Tories, get some today! Get on the ready line! Move it out! Move it out, goddammit! Get hot! One, two, three, four! Get out, get out, get out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven! Aaarrrrr, absolutely badasses! Let's pack 'em in! Get in there!
There seems this issue of compliance and control - checking the goods coming in really do come from the originating country otherwise they would have to pay the relevant tariff.
So a border on the Irish side is to check what is coming south is actually "Made in Britain" and there seems a lot of debate as to whether the technology to adequately cover this exists.
I'm concerned about the Services aspect of the British economy which is crucial - CETA is about goods so how does the EU deal with passporting for example?
Is the idea then for the Withdrawal Agreement to be Canada +++ in principle with a phased implementation to begin from 2021? That's a little can kicking down the road for me but it means the world doesn't end on 30/3/19.
Having re-read May's speech from yesterday, the section covering Brexit is the least convincing and the most platitudinous.
The perceived risks of leaving the EU without a deal are as valid as the perceived risks of letting RBS fail were 10 years ago so it won't happen or rather it will take staggering ineptitude from both the UK AND the EU for it to happen.
By the by, the latest musings of Simon Jenkins which are always worth a read:
So do I. Alien, Aliens and (for sheer romp value) "Fifth Element"
They *both* say it
Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Private Hudson: Fuckin' A!
Burke: Hold on, hold on just a second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.
Ripley: They can *bill* me.
Burke: Okay, I know this is an emotional moment for all of us, okay? I know that. But let's not make snap judgments, please. This is clearly... clearly an important species we're dealing with and I don't think that you or I, or *anybody*, has the right to arbitrarily exterminate them.
Ripley: [laughs feebly] Wrong.
Private Vasquez: Yeah. Watch us.
Private Hudson: Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked, pal!
Burke: Look. I'm not blind to what's going on, but I cannot authorize that kind of action. I'm sorry.
Ripley: Well, I believe that Corporal Hicks... has authority here.
Burke: *Corporal* Hicks has...
Ripley: This operation is under military jurisdiction and Hicks is next in chain of command. Am I right, Corporal?
Corporal Hicks: Yeah... yeah, that's right.
Burke: Yeah... Look, Ripley, this is a multi-million dollar installation, okay? He can't make that kind of decision. He's just a grunt! Uh, no offense.
Corporal Hicks: [coldly] None taken.
Corporal Hicks: [into headset] Ferro, do you copy?
Corporal Ferro: [on comms] Standing by.
Corporal Hicks: Prepare for dust-off. We're gonna need immediate evac.
Corporal Ferro: [on comms] Roger. On our way.
Corporal Hicks: I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit.
I'm concerned about the Services aspect of the British economy which is crucial - CETA is about goods so how does the EU deal with passporting for example?
The battle over passporting was lost along time ago.
I'm concerned about the Services aspect of the British economy which is crucial - CETA is about goods so how does the EU deal with passporting for example?
The battle over passporting was lost along time ago.
Tell me about it.
Brexiteers have ruined my life and a major part of the UK economy.
I'm concerned about the Services aspect of the British economy which is crucial - CETA is about goods so how does the EU deal with passporting for example?
The battle over passporting was lost along time ago.
I'm concerned about the Services aspect of the British economy which is crucial - CETA is about goods so how does the EU deal with passporting for example?
The battle over passporting was lost along time ago.
Not for pets, hopefully.
I think that is the issue behind the wooferendum march on Sunday.
I'm concerned about the Services aspect of the British economy which is crucial - CETA is about goods so how does the EU deal with passporting for example?
The battle over passporting was lost along time ago.
Not for pets, hopefully.
I think that is the issue behind the wooferendum march on Sunday.
On paper or off it, that idea is absolutely barking - and I'm not punning, for once. Whoever came up with it should seek help for their serious chemical addiction.
I'm concerned about the Services aspect of the British economy which is crucial - CETA is about goods so how does the EU deal with passporting for example?
The battle over passporting was lost along time ago.
Not for pets, hopefully.
I think that is the issue behind the wooferendum march on Sunday.
I'm concerned about the Services aspect of the British economy which is crucial - CETA is about goods so how does the EU deal with passporting for example?
The battle over passporting was lost along time ago.
Not for pets, hopefully.
I think that is the issue behind the wooferendum march on Sunday.
On paper or off it, that idea is absolutely barking - and I'm not punning, for once. Whoever came up with it should seek help for their serious chemical addiction.
Its a good gimmick for publicity. Humans march on 20th October.
I'm concerned about the Services aspect of the British economy which is crucial - CETA is about goods so how does the EU deal with passporting for example?
The battle over passporting was lost along time ago.
Not for pets, hopefully.
I think that is the issue behind the wooferendum march on Sunday.
On paper or off it, that idea is absolutely barking - and I'm not punning, for once. Whoever came up with it should seek help for their serious chemical addiction.
Its a good gimmick for publicity. Humans march on 20th October.
I'm concerned about the Services aspect of the British economy which is crucial - CETA is about goods so how does the EU deal with passporting for example?
The battle over passporting was lost along time ago.
Not for pets, hopefully.
I think that is the issue behind the wooferendum march on Sunday.
On paper or off it, that idea is absolutely barking - and I'm not punning, for once. Whoever came up with it should seek help for their serious chemical addiction.
Its a good gimmick for publicity. Humans march on 20th October.
They aren't going to be marching with the dogs?
Remainers do not take kindly to being dragged along by their inferiors?
I'm concerned about the Services aspect of the British economy which is crucial - CETA is about goods so how does the EU deal with passporting for example?
The battle over passporting was lost along time ago.
Not for pets, hopefully.
I think that is the issue behind the wooferendum march on Sunday.
On paper or off it, that idea is absolutely barking - and I'm not punning, for once. Whoever came up with it should seek help for their serious chemical addiction.
Its a good gimmick for publicity. Humans march on 20th October.
Why not make it here right now? We wouldn’t have to take you on your word, you would actually prove it.
Just imagine you are on QT and the question comes up.
The mics yours.
Sure:
"Ian Hislop has done some great work in uncovering miscarriages of justice, and we should all grateful for the work his magazine has done. And he is right in another way too: when blood is up, around some terrorist outrage, that is the time when it is easiest to come to too quick decisions, and mistakes are made.
If the death penalty is to be reintroduced we need to make sure it has the greatest possible safeguards. We need to accept that while a life sentence can be reversed, the death penalty cannot. The sheer gravity of the punishment should weigh on everyone involved. We cannot allow mistakes to happen, and that's why, I would propose setting up an automatic committee made up of law enforcement officers and senior members of the judiciary that reviews each and every death penalty decision - looking for ways in which convictions could be unsafe. The work that Ian Hislop has done, we would look to extend and institutionalise it.
But enough about safeguards. Let's talk about why, in the most heinous of cases, the death penalty is morally right and just. Society needs to have a deterrent that goes beyond another day in a comfortable cell watching daytime TV. There needs to be an incentive to a kidnapper to know that if he steps over the boundary into murder, then there will be consequences to that action. There are people so terrible, and so evil, that they can never be rehabilitated, and their debt to society cannot ever be repaid. And let us not forget that beyond deterrence and rehabilitition, the justice system plays another important role: that of retribution on behalf of society for the wrongs inflicted on victims. For that reason, we need to have the ultimate penalty for the most heionous and evil of crimes."
Bravo. [claps. Draws on cigarette. Stubs out cigarette. Closes pad]
Comments
I do not particularly care what anybody on this blog thinks about me personally, I don't come here to make friends but to express my views and pick up political news, although I do try and avoid getting personal and stick to political argument
using that quote makes you into "Burke" (the slimeball). At least I get to be Ripley
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/04/heitkamp-vote-no-kavanaugh-869443
Which was always reasonably likely.
Bottom line, whatever rudeness is inflicted in response, if you want to get ALLCAPS condescending, don't be guilty of the same terrible terminological mistake you want to get condescending about. It's like critiquing someone's grammar - if you are going to do it, at least be correct. No that doesn't make any response ok, carte blanche is not offered, and as I say people may judge me for that as they wish, but neither does it erase the silliness that provoked it.
God I love that film.
https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1047927766581174273?s=19
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: Are ya mean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU?
PB Tories: Lean and mean!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU? RobD! TSE! Get on the ready line, PB Tories, get some today! Get on the ready line! Move it out! Move it out, goddammit! Get hot! One, two, three, four! Get out, get out, get out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven! Aaarrrrr, absolutely badasses! Let's pack 'em in! Get in there!
This informs my understanding of the various flavours of CETA which is a trade agreement:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/05/a-canadian-perspective-on-ceta-those-pluses-will-come-with-minuses/
There seems this issue of compliance and control - checking the goods coming in really do come from the originating country otherwise they would have to pay the relevant tariff.
So a border on the Irish side is to check what is coming south is actually "Made in Britain" and there seems a lot of debate as to whether the technology to adequately cover this exists.
I'm concerned about the Services aspect of the British economy which is crucial - CETA is about goods so how does the EU deal with passporting for example?
Is the idea then for the Withdrawal Agreement to be Canada +++ in principle with a phased implementation to begin from 2021? That's a little can kicking down the road for me but it means the world doesn't end on 30/3/19.
Having re-read May's speech from yesterday, the section covering Brexit is the least convincing and the most platitudinous.
The perceived risks of leaving the EU without a deal are as valid as the perceived risks of letting RBS fail were 10 years ago so it won't happen or rather it will take staggering ineptitude from both the UK AND the EU for it to happen.
By the by, the latest musings of Simon Jenkins which are always worth a read:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/04/brexit-stay-engaged-eu
I was thinking of the Nuke-from-orbit bit
So do I. Alien, Aliens and (for sheer romp value) "Fifth Element"
Hope I am wrong but I reckon LD Gain
460 votes out of 3200 by 8pm
We reckon only 140 of 460 are Lab
Hopefully our canvass returns are wrong
Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Private Hudson: Fuckin' A!
Burke: Hold on, hold on just a second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.
Ripley: They can *bill* me.
Burke: Okay, I know this is an emotional moment for all of us, okay? I know that. But let's not make snap judgments, please. This is clearly... clearly an important species we're dealing with and I don't think that you or I, or *anybody*, has the right to arbitrarily exterminate them.
Ripley: [laughs feebly] Wrong.
Private Vasquez: Yeah. Watch us.
Private Hudson: Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked, pal!
Burke: Look. I'm not blind to what's going on, but I cannot authorize that kind of action. I'm sorry.
Ripley: Well, I believe that Corporal Hicks... has authority here.
Burke: *Corporal* Hicks has...
Ripley: This operation is under military jurisdiction and Hicks is next in chain of command. Am I right, Corporal?
Corporal Hicks: Yeah... yeah, that's right.
Burke: Yeah... Look, Ripley, this is a multi-million dollar installation, okay? He can't make that kind of decision. He's just a grunt! Uh, no offense.
Corporal Hicks: [coldly] None taken.
Corporal Hicks: [into headset] Ferro, do you copy?
Corporal Ferro: [on comms] Standing by.
Corporal Hicks: Prepare for dust-off. We're gonna need immediate evac.
Corporal Ferro: [on comms] Roger. On our way.
Corporal Hicks: I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit.
[looks to Ripley]
Corporal Hicks: It's the only way to be sure.
[Ripley smiles]
Brexiteers have ruined my life and a major part of the UK economy.
last time there was a 60% turnout and Lab won by less than 200
Today looks like being less than half of that 25%ish at best
House impeaches, Senate convicts, same rules as a Presidential impeachment.
Short of reoffending in office Kavanaugh will be safe.
NEW THREAD