wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Jul 14, 2017 3:53:07 GMT -5
Trust in the EU (European union) has not been this high in the past years, and all past elections employed pro EU leaders, except for great Britain, who seem to regret their choices. That appears to be mainly Scotland because the Brexit vote didn't happen before the referendum on Scottish independence, so the Scottish First Minister wants another one. Greater London voted to remain also but that's not too surprising since that is where a lot of foreign citizens move to and settle.
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by qupie on Jul 14, 2017 5:02:33 GMT -5
Neh after a year the majority in the whole country seems to regret the outcome, you are talking about the day after. Especially because a lot of promises made by Brexit politicians are not going to be met.
I am fairly confident that another referendum at this date would not result in a Brexit vote.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jul 15, 2017 22:43:39 GMT -5
They voted to leave, asking for another vote is refusing to accept the results.
If you are going to point to the election that recently happened, that was more May shooting herself in the foot with that retarded manifesto nobody wanted. Corbyn would have won majority if people wanted to undo Brexit.
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Jul 16, 2017 11:45:42 GMT -5
Neh after a year the majority in the whole country seems to regret the outcome, you are talking about the day after. Especially because a lot of promises made by Brexit politicians are not going to be met. Politicians not living up to their promises is part of their job description though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 15:53:23 GMT -5
Obamaham Lincoln learns about the magic of freeing violent criminals. imgur.com/a/cCsPGSurpriiise- they're still violent criminals. EDIT: But wait, there's more! imgur.com/a/LFSiF
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Jul 22, 2017 16:27:23 GMT -5
Beaver, does this guy cite actual sources on this information or do I have to take his word for it that he isn't just making everything up?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2017 19:23:12 GMT -5
Beaver, does this guy cite actual sources on this information or do I have to take his word for it that he isn't just making everything up? I was sitting here plucking every link from his tweets until I found out Ace of Spades HQ did just that. I'm not sure where this came from: However I can confirm there are 23 Violent Crimes now. Anything not on that list isn't a violent crime, which includes everything on that list. It's a pretty big leap from what Prop 47 was discussing- it dealt largely with certain crimes that dealt with less 950 USD in damage. I can't find anything on Duane Chapman (Dog the Bounty Hounter) testifying about these loopholes. Though from the videos I've watched he's advocating for the bail bond system, noting how it's incentivizing people to become a functional member of society again to pay off their bail. Also because he and the company he represents makes a lot of money to offer a service that keeps these people functional. Though there's no word on how these people do after they pay off their debts. Tweet (28) on the Democrats solely trying to piss off the Republicans seems the most loaded in speculation among the other bits of rhetoric he posted. Turns out if you say something with enough conviction you don't need actual proof to convince people of something. Alanis Morissette's article seems pretty irrelevant- no mention of her living in New Jersey. Just a lady with stuff to steal. What I can divulge from the presented evidence this is that New Jersey is attempting to make the justice system more lenient. There's a lot of information saying that non-criminals less safe, and that part is both important and true. The one important question that's not being answered is how many Jean Valjean's we found, and what characters they had over the recurring criminals. Oh, and the second article. Tweet (2)'s New York Post - Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database has no sources. The Fox News clip at (12) is just a guy confirming that congress wants to build more low income housing. That's the only fact in this entire segment, unless Fox News is making that up somehow. Whelp. I screwed up.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Jul 26, 2017 15:30:30 GMT -5
Penis Penis Penis
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2017 16:06:04 GMT -5
Most penis distraction president ever.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Jul 27, 2017 2:00:02 GMT -5
I think the transgender military ban is following the same reasoning for the already-existing bans on diabetics, asthmatics, and pretty much anyone else who requires any type of daily medication. It's due to the difficulty and cost of getting the daily hormonal replacement therapy drugs to the front lines of an active war zone. Flat out banning all transgender people rather than just those that take the HRT drugs is a pretty big goof though.
Does being ineligible to enlist also make one ineligible to be drafted?
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Jul 27, 2017 7:47:10 GMT -5
I thought they showed what the medical cost of transgender in the military was already. I thought it was less than 8 million
|
|
|
Post by illram on Jul 27, 2017 13:14:08 GMT -5
Military brass are saying they ain't doing shit until the President actually follows normal protocol to change the policy, as opposed to sending a tweet like an amateur. We'll see if the White House is competent enough to write some paragraphs on actual paper. I'm not convinced they have that capacity, yet.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Jul 29, 2017 0:36:49 GMT -5
|
|
Slick
True Bro
Taking the piss
Posts: 1,015
|
Post by Slick on Jul 29, 2017 21:08:16 GMT -5
Transgender /= gender dysphoria. I think the argument can be made that people with mental disabilities should be excluded from service, but I wish the terminology would sort itself out. Transgender is such a broad term that it includes non-normative behavior of people who identify as a classic gender, meaning male and female, such as non-feminine women.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Jul 31, 2017 14:06:19 GMT -5
oh NO, not the Mooch!!
|
|
|
Post by illram on Jul 31, 2017 17:03:18 GMT -5
He's draining the swamp!
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Aug 1, 2017 14:49:05 GMT -5
That guy is an impressive conspiracy theorist. For example, he goes on a 36 tweet diatribe - tweet 1 is "this is what Obama did", tweet 36 is "that's what Obama did", and tweets 2-35 don't mention Obama. The other one is about how Democrats are "forcing your property values down in the name of 'social justice.'", which is just as stupid as it sounds.
The transgender issue is a political play. Everyone knows that the costs of transgender-specific healthcare are close to 0. The military did a study and recommended covering the costs because it reduces the suicide rate. There aren't issues of combat readiness. It's purpose is to use it as a negotiating point and make the Democrats have to talk about the issue instead of the actual issues that they should address during the 2018 elections. It's also part of their plan to simply do so many reprehensible things on so many fronts that they can't all be reasonably stopped. Sure, they were successful at stopping a complete repeal of the ACA, but Trump is doing everything he can to undermine it to make it fail; in the meantime, they're diverting some of the attention from how they're dismantling net neutrality and gutting the EPA. With all of the news of turnover in the White House, it's easy to forget that only three weeks ago the President's son admitted to collusion with a foreign government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 16:56:43 GMT -5
The transgender issue is a political play. Everyone knows that the costs of transgender-specific healthcare are close to 0. The military did a study and recommended covering the costs because it reduces the suicide rate. There aren't issues of combat readiness. It's purpose is to use it as a negotiating point and make the Democrats have to talk about the issue instead of the actual issues that they should address during the 2018 elections. It's also part of their plan to simply do so many reprehensible things on so many fronts that they can't all be reasonably stopped. Sure, they were successful at stopping a complete repeal of the ACA, but Trump is doing everything he can to undermine it to make it fail; in the meantime, they're diverting some of the attention from how they're dismantling net neutrality and gutting the EPA. With all of the news of turnover in the White House, it's easy to forget that only three weeks ago the President's son admitted to collusion with a foreign government. Beaver, does this guy cite actual sources on this information or do I have to take his word for it that he isn't just making everything up?
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Aug 1, 2017 17:27:15 GMT -5
The other one is about how Democrats are "forcing your property values down in the name of 'social justice.'", which is just as stupid as it sounds. Everyone knows that the costs of transgender-specific healthcare are close to 0. 1. It's not untrue that a larger black population in an area causes property value to drop. I'm not going to defend it, but it happens. 2. It costs tens of thousands for someone to transition. Just because that is a small amount of the total military healthcare budget doesn't mean it isn't a lot for an individual person.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Aug 2, 2017 9:58:44 GMT -5
2. This second point seems easy enough to actually get the facts right on, and I don't understand why it hasn't come out yet. All we've seen is that it is less than 8 million. But I think the bulk of that is hormonal drugs, not surgery. The number is rather meaningless in a vacuum, since it should be shown on what the average medical cost is per trans, and compare that to avg costs of other types of soliders (and this is a road I really don't want to go down).
At the end of the day, if the medication costs too much, then the solution isn't to ban a certain type of people from being able to serve, but rather to change and renegotiate the cost or coverage of the benefits package. Maybe even going to the extreme of not covering the cost of those meds. Although that sounds rough, it certainly is more reasonable than outright banning citizens from being able to serve. It doesn't impair their ability to serve or fight in any way.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Aug 2, 2017 11:23:58 GMT -5
The other one is about how Democrats are "forcing your property values down in the name of 'social justice.'", which is just as stupid as it sounds. Everyone knows that the costs of transgender-specific healthcare are close to 0. 1. It's not untrue that a larger black population in an area causes property value to drop. I'm not going to defend it, but it happens. 2. It costs tens of thousands for someone to transition. Just because that is a small amount of the total military healthcare budget doesn't mean it isn't a lot for an individual person. 1. Here are some of the ridiculous fabrications in his tweets: - The Democrats are intentionally driving down your property values (who YOU are is unclear) - There's a secret database that civil-rights attorneys and activist groups can access - Cities, corporations, individuals are all victims of "shake-downs" and paying through the nose - This is a massive income stream (the recipient is not mentioned) - The scheme's ultimate goal is to make the racial demographics of each zip code equal (no explanation of why this would be a goal) - The argument he's put forth is incontrovertible evidence that Obama wanted to destroy the US Other very basic concepts that he just fails to grasp: - Affordable housing is based upon income, not race - Affordable housing doesn't create those evil minorities out of thin air. Those minorities moving into your neighborhood and driving property values down moved out of a neighborhood which in turn would see property values rise. In fact, if there were a massive income stream to be made from a scheme like this, it would be from landlords driving low income, minority tenants out of their neighborhoods. Landlords in NYC are frequently doing this. I don't think I need to go over which party is more likely to adopt a scheme from NYC landlords. BTW, he didn't mention black people. 2. Yes, I agree. The costs are significant to individuals, absolutely nothing to the military budget. The argument that supporting these healthcare costs is too great to continue doing is laughable, not just because it is so low, but also because it has been found to actually reduce costs.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Aug 2, 2017 17:28:09 GMT -5
1. the point is that its basically saying that equality isn't worth a drop in property value. which it not only terrible but also has cyclical reasoning (of course blacks will lower property value if people are explicitly keeping them out of high value areas on those grounds). 2. the cost isnt in a vacuum. because it also allieviates the cost of more frequent suicides (on top of you know, preventing suicides being a pretty high priority for the military). and the civilian cost to transition is not a good way to gauge how much extra the military is spending to cover trans-related costs; especially when a huge portion of trans dont get surgery. 1. I'd read it as implying that minorities are being forced into higher value housing as some sort of forced equality of outcome, rather than minorities naturally working their way up. 2. Suicide rates are still higher regardless of if they transition. Either way, the costs of anything should be criticized as they all end up being paid for by taxpayers of which a non insignificant amount disagree with the procedure morally.
|
|
|
Post by illram on Aug 2, 2017 19:11:26 GMT -5
Wait, there is some secret database for civil rights lawyers? I'm a civil rights lawyer and no one told me! Where is this secret database because I want in on some of this sweet hot shakedown money. I'll have to get on my secret illuminati civil rights lawyer hotline and direct dial Obama at his Madrasa in Kenya to get some answers!
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Aug 3, 2017 9:33:22 GMT -5
1. the point is that its basically saying that equality isn't worth a drop in property value. which it not only terrible but also has cyclical reasoning (of course blacks will lower property value if people are explicitly keeping them out of high value areas on those grounds). 2. the cost isnt in a vacuum. because it also allieviates the cost of more frequent suicides (on top of you know, preventing suicides being a pretty high priority for the military). and the civilian cost to transition is not a good way to gauge how much extra the military is spending to cover trans-related costs; especially when a huge portion of trans dont get surgery. 1. I'd read it as implying that minorities are being forced into higher value housing as some sort of forced equality of outcome, rather than minorities naturally working their way up. 2. Suicide rates are still higher regardless of if they transition. Either way, the costs of anything should be criticized as they all end up being paid for by taxpayers of which a non insignificant amount disagree with the procedure morally. 1. No, minorities are not forced into higher value housing. Poor people are forced into higher value housing. Affordable housing is eligible based upon income, not race. 2. If we're going to criticize military costs, there are hundreds, probably thousands of things which we should criticize before getting into the pittance spent on this. I don't understand how someone would oppose someone doing gender conversion on moral grounds, can you please explain?
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Aug 3, 2017 10:33:03 GMT -5
Rep. Joe Kennedy III, used very few words last night to really succinctly talk about point #2. He said something like, "Our president has told thousands of American soldiers that they will fight for us, but we will not fight for them. That their deeply personal medical decisions are somehow the public's business. That although they are willing to sacrifice their lives to protect our freedom, we will not offer them the most basic freedom in return, the freedom to be themselves"
not bad
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Aug 3, 2017 14:43:37 GMT -5
... for a ginger.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Aug 4, 2017 17:03:50 GMT -5
So is mao-c like Ronald Rump's #1 supporter or what?
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Aug 4, 2017 17:16:33 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2017 2:14:52 GMT -5
I just wanted America to grate again. Now we have all this cheese and no fries.
|
|
Slick
True Bro
Taking the piss
Posts: 1,015
|
Post by Slick on Aug 18, 2017 20:25:14 GMT -5
Bannon.
|
|