INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: odeon on November 04, 2016, 10:39:00 AM
-
I guess it's a bit like Hillary for some people. I can't stand Theresa May. She's a fake, an ambition-driven bitch without an honest fibre in her body, a lying cunt ready to sway whichever way the polls sway. No backbone and no principles.
I think she should marry Boris Johnson. They have a lot in common.
-
I agree, she needs to grow a back bone and enforce article 50 now.
-
And break the law? Yes please, that would take care of her.
-
And break the law? Yes please, that would take care of her.
Haha. Trying to get this through parliament could actually be a good thing. We will learn who works for the people and who works for the corporate machine. She should have invoked article 50 months ago, but this is probably the present she's been waiting for, so she can pretend she's fighting for us against the judges and Co and then MP's will make the decision she truly desires, while pretending to be against it.
-
The referendum has no legal standing whatsoever, but the parliament has to be involved if you wish to repeal legislation affecting domestic affairs. This is actually a fairly basic fact and one that Theresa May must have known about when she took office.
I think it's entirely reasonable that the parliament has a say on Brexit, actually.
-
The referendum has no legal standing whatsoever, but the parliament has to be involved if you wish to repeal legislation affecting domestic affairs. This is actually a fairly basic fact and one that Theresa May must have known about when she took office.
I think it's entirely reasonable that the parliament has a say on Brexit, actually.
Then that should have been explained before the referendum. I wonder if you'd be saying this if remain had won though. I don't know if the government could make 'Brexit' a primary legislation, meaning that the Supreme Court couldn't do a thing about it. She probably did know, she's a crook and wants to stay in the EU.
Yes, cause you believe that they'll vote in your favor. Please stop pretending you want them to vote because it's right and proper. I think it could be a good thing that they vote as I've said. The crooks will be exposed if/when they defy the will of the people, and the British people will not stand for it.
-
She is a fake, a liar, a spineless crook and a dried up, leprous old crackwhore's cut-out vulva, dried up and stored in a shitbox full of maggots, piss and little baby rattlesnakes.
And responsible for the disgusting and ridiculous psychoactive substances bill. This basically bans outright, pre-natally, EVERY single possible psychoactive substance. This specifically excludes those they already make money on, alcohol and tobacco, two substances singularly responsible for MASSIVE societal and personal harm as well as harm to the NHS.
Yet bans, say, exotic indigenous psychoactive herbs that at most in the UK have a mere handful of people who have ever tasted the like. Like, say, Iporuru is now a banned substance with a penalty attached to possession. How many people here, save for myself of course, have ever taken into their body, the plant Alchornea floribunda, the dried rootbark thereof? this is Iporuru, I've had it, and frankly don't reccomend it either. But there is ZERO danger of this african plant (zaire, cameroon I THINK is the origin)
I didn't expect anyone here has taken the likes of Iporuru, its little known of even in online drug communities. But technically, even valerian from health food stores and Boots is now actually, strictly speaking, illegal, for its psychoactive, its a sedative and oneirogen. But do you see street dealers lining up to sell highly exotics?
NO, and it drives the trade in so called 'RCs (research chemicals, in the slang parlance, repeated analogues made to tweak the structure of illegal drugs and thus provide people with legal ones. This scene originally started out with people choosing fairly benign compounds to sell. With repetitive legislative crackdowns I watched this play out, and yes, I used many many many of the compounds, such as methoxetamine, a hybrid arylcyclohexylamine between the ketamine-like and PCP-type subfamilies within the group, this scene eventually degenerated to the point where for synthetic cannabinoids, which originally were fairly benign analogs being sold, like CP-55,940 and CP-55,940-dimethyloctyl homolog, and for an uberpotent option, the ultralong lasting THC modification, HU-210, on which, on carefully spiked inert plant base which which to smoke it as one would smoke standard cannabis sativa/indica, as its active in the +50-100microgram range, I have had the rare pleasure of an incredibly beautiful psychedelic experience, not just stoned, very stoned yes, but walking home on a frosty night, blazed out of my noggin on HU-210/CP-55,940-dimethyloctyl, and everything, every single last tiny grain of ice and frost was shining and twinkling brightly, even the darkness of the winters night was lit up like a christmas tree, with every tiny detail magnified, massive degree of macropsia, some dissociation. I still remember that night, as it was SO fucking beautiful. And when I got home, I tripped for ages, hours and hours until the HU-210 began to lessen in intensity a little before eating a hearty meal and having a restful night's sleep. Eventually after the likes of JWH-210 type indolic cannabinoids got banned, then they brought out the indAZole versions which progressively got banned. Now in this family there is significant benefit gotten from adding a terminal fluoroalkane chain to the 1-position indole or indazole nitrogen, and whilst odd-numbered carbon chains with the terminal fluoride are acceptable pharmacologically, to use an even numbered terminal fluoroalkane, such as say, 5-fluoropentyl, the traditional one is quite fine, but 4-fluorobutyl is potentially lethal, because these even numbered carbon chains, as would 6--fluorohexyl on the indolic or indazolic 1-position nitrogen, these chains get metabolized into fluoroacetate. AKA the poison ten-eighty, its LETHAL stuff, a metabolic poison because fluoroacetate gets metabolized to fluorocitrate which cannot be processed by the enzyme aconitase within the Kreb's cycle (citrate cycle) of glycolysis and ATP production, making it a truly deadly, nasty metabolic toxin with no antidote, some theoretical ones but not things that hospitals might have on hand. And some cannabinoids, indazolic core mostly with a 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-sidechain on the indazolic or indolic 1-position, that is to say, the nitrogen on an indole ring, or the first nitrogen on an indazole, that were either hyperpotent For example N-cumyl-(1-5-fluoropentyl)indazole-3-carboxylate is fully active within a dose range of a few tens of micrograms, its more potent as a cannabinoid is than fentanyl is as an opioid agonist, FAR more potent, and far shorter lasting, its like the remifentanil of cannabinoids, very difficult to dose, and when I've had it, the typical effect, its been lucky I was lying on my bed, because it was a matter of inhale toke, resting on elbow reading book playing some music, then eyes droop, muscles become hypertonic, get munchies, pass out cold. Instant general anaesthesia. With ONE single toke of a 1mg/1ml solution in propylene glycol/glycerine like the smoke companies make E-liquids. A few breaths were as much as I could physically tolerate using a low voltage battery. This N-cumyl fluoropentylindazolecarboxylate would likely have been rejected if many others, like the benign CP-series cannabinoids were left alone. Then things with a 3-methylvalinyl sidechain on the 3-position, that is to say, 3-tert-valine based sidechains appeared and these actually proved lethal poisons in addition to cannabinoid effects. Got popular for a brief time with users in estonia and other parts of eastern europe before it was realized how deadly they were. I don't know the mechanism of toxic activity. But people were taking one inhalation and dropping dead. Even full agonist (THC is a medium strength partial agonist of CB1 receptors) which is why THC is impossible more or less to OD on, whilst the full agonist cannabinoidergics can be quite dangerous. In overdose, but not like these 3-(3-methyl)-valine subbed indazolic cannabinoids, some of the FUBINACA analogs were responsible IIRC.
Would like to overlay 3D structure with leelamine and certain other pyruvate decarboxylase kinase inhibitors, those would fuck with the ATP generation processes alright, just to see if that is an incidental pharmacophoric crossover.
-
The referendum has no legal standing whatsoever, but the parliament has to be involved if you wish to repeal legislation affecting domestic affairs. This is actually a fairly basic fact and one that Theresa May must have known about when she took office.
I think it's entirely reasonable that the parliament has a say on Brexit, actually.
Then that should have been explained before the referendum. I wonder if you'd be saying this if remain had won though. I don't know if the government could make 'Brexit' a primary legislation, meaning that the Supreme Court couldn't do a thing about it. She probably did know, she's a crook and wants to stay in the EU.
Yes, cause you believe that they'll vote in your favor. Please stop pretending you want them to vote because it's right and proper. I think it could be a good thing that they vote as I've said. The crooks will be exposed if/when they defy the will of the people, and the British people will not stand for it.
Not every piece of legislation is immediately obvious to the stupid, but unless you were born under a rock, the fact that the referendum had no legislative power should hardly come as a surprise. Even to you. Me, I work with your legislation daily and know what it is about and how changes to it happen, but I guess some engagement will always be necessary.
And no, I wouldn't be saying this if remain had won, because I would have been relieved and happy, and thought that while there are so many idiots it's scary, this time common sense won. Alas.
-
The referendum has no legal standing whatsoever, but the parliament has to be involved if you wish to repeal legislation affecting domestic affairs. This is actually a fairly basic fact and one that Theresa May must have known about when she took office.
I think it's entirely reasonable that the parliament has a say on Brexit, actually.
Then that should have been explained before the referendum. I wonder if you'd be saying this if remain had won though. I don't know if the government could make 'Brexit' a primary legislation, meaning that the Supreme Court couldn't do a thing about it. She probably did know, she's a crook and wants to stay in the EU.
Yes, cause you believe that they'll vote in your favor. Please stop pretending you want them to vote because it's right and proper. I think it could be a good thing that they vote as I've said. The crooks will be exposed if/when they defy the will of the people, and the British people will not stand for it.
Not every piece of legislation is immediately obvious to the stupid, but unless you were born under a rock, the fact that the referendum had no legislative power should hardly come as a surprise. Even to you. Me, I work with your legislation daily and know what it is about and how changes to it happen, but I guess some engagement will always be necessary.
And no, I wouldn't be saying this if remain had won, because I would have been relieved and happy, and thought that while there are so many idiots it's scary, this time common sense won. Alas.
It wasn't obvious, Peter Hitchens was the only person I knew that spoke about it. and please don't pretend you knew about it. You've only become aware of it after the referendum when the media has spoken about it, as the machine would have had it as a back up if they lost, and wouldn't have mentioned it before as it would have affected the remain side. The vote has no legislative power but I just wondered if the government could have found a way to make it a primary legislation. What May really should have done is trigger article 50 immediately and then we have 2 years to negotiate. But, she's a remainiac and desperately wants us to stay in but wants to pretend to be with the people, hence her phony outrage about the poppies. You should be proud of her, she's your hero really. If we had a Prime Minister with backbone, they'd have triggered article 50 straight away.
Well I have to respect you a bit for admitting to the left wing Nazi that you are I guess. So everyone who voted to leave is an idiot? Haha, just stay out of our politics you cunt. Go and sort your own country out.
-
Again, don't assume that everyone is as ignorant as you are. I can't help that you don't know how your country's legal system works. I do know, however, and did long before the referendum.
Nope, not everyone who voted leave is an idiot. There are other excuses, too.
-
Again, don't assume that everyone is as ignorant as you are. I can't help that you don't know how your country's legal system works. I do know, however, and did long before the referendum.
Nope, not everyone who voted leave is an idiot. There are other excuses, too.
Haha, funny coming from you. The referendum vote gave the government a mandate to legally trigger article 50, your hero May has intentionally delayed it, and your other heroes like Nick Clegg and Bob Gelfof have pushed this nonsense into court. Stop lying, you don't know shit. You have only become aware of it since you lost the argument.
Yes, like not wanting our country controlled by the Eurogroup, meaning that general elections will not change economic policies as long as we are tied to the EU.
The irony of all this is that the remainiacs have been hell bent on destroying British laws, but now think they're suddenly important when they lost the referendum.
-
A couple of things...
If Theresa May is my hero, then the subject line of this thread is rather odd, don't you think?
I know perfectly she voted remain, which is another reason why I loathe her. While remaining an MP would have been fine, accepting to be PM for a government whose only real task can be to implement Brexit is something only someone with boundless ambition instead of a backbone would do.
British law can still be rather arcane at times, but the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is clear, which is why referendums are not legally binding. Theresa May attempted to short-circuit that principle by using the royal prerogative so you should be thankful that the court didn't allow her to. It's a slippery slope.
Oh and I work for one of the biggest legal publishers in the world. While they don't pay me for legal advice--we have armies of lawyers for that sort of thing--I bet I have had more to do with UK law than you ever will even if it were to lock you up and throw away the key.
-
A couple of things...
If Theresa May is my hero, then the subject line of this thread is rather odd, don't you think?
I know perfectly she voted remain, which is another reason why I loathe her. While remaining an MP would have been fine, accepting to be PM for a government whose only real task can be to implement Brexit is something only someone with boundless ambition instead of a backbone would do.
British law can still be rather arcane at times, but the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is clear, which is why referendums are not legally binding. Theresa May attempted to short-circuit that principle by using the royal prerogative so you should be thankful that the court didn't allow her to. It's a slippery slope.
Oh and I work for one of the biggest legal publishers in the world. While they don't pay me for legal advice--we have armies of lawyers for that sort of thing--I bet I have had more to do with UK law than you ever will even if it were to lock you up and throw away the key.
She should be your hero by your own logic. You admitted that you don't care how you win and she's on your side.
Oh wait, so now you do care how you win? There's something seriously fishy about her getting the PM job, when she is a neoremainer and in her last job she was utterly terrible. May is pretty much all words, which are aimed to please the actual conservative members of her party, where as her actions just benefit the establishment. She talked tough on immigration and her record as Home Secretary was abysmal, having the second highest net migration figure on record. She should have been sacked for that, instead she was promoted. Sounds like the bankers who get rewarded for doing a terrible job.
Who would you rather have been the PM?
All she did was delay it as she knew it would be challenged and delay it even further. If "brexit means brexit", then she'd have triggered article 50 immediately. Hence why you should be proud of her.
Which one? So you want to stay in the EU for you, your company and your personal situation, nothing to do with what the British people want or what's best for them. Sorry, but that's not good enough.
-
I think one of the leave campaigners, or at least somebody who did vote leave, should have been PM. Don't you think a PM should believe in the only main task his or her government is likely to have before an election that surely will replace them with others, no matter what they do?
As for me, yes, of course I would like for the UK to remain for my own personal reasons--are you seriously telling me that your views are purely altruistic? I believe it's good for both the UK and the rest of the EU, and I share this view with about half your population.
We have already established that I know more about your legislative processes and laws than you do, and I'm guessing I contribute more to your economy than you do, too. How does it feel to be such a pathetic loser?
-
I think one of the leave campaigners, or at least somebody who did vote leave, should have been PM. Don't you think a PM should believe in the only main task his or her government is likely to have before an election that surely will replace them with others, no matter what they do?
As for me, yes, of course I would like for the UK to remain for my own personal reasons--are you seriously telling me that your views are purely altruistic? I believe it's good for both the UK and the rest of the EU, and I share this view with about half your population.
We have already established that I know more about your legislative processes and laws than you do, and I'm guessing I contribute more to your economy than you do, too. How does it feel to be such a pathetic loser?
I blame Cameron. He only planned for one outcome. If I said to you that if you call a coin toss correctly I will give you £10,000 and then you get it right and I say "well sorry I don't have the money, I thought you'd lose", you'd probably be very fucked off and seek justice and think I was a cunt.
It's not good for the UK though, it's good for politicians, big corporations and the bankers, but not for the British people, well not the bulk anyway or our sovereignty. We are £1.6 trillion in debt so something needs to change. People want us to have control of our own country, but I feel the next step is people realising that our politicians aren't for the people at all and now they can no longer blame the EU.
You don't know shit about me. You're the one who lost and have acted pathetically about it. And your side lost again in America last night. The economy doesn't benefit the people, politicians and co spend all our money on wars, nukes and the EU and then just make endless cuts that affect the people. The tide is changing so get used to it.
-
It's funny how you simply abandon an earlier talking point whenever I prove you wrong. Here's the thing, though: there's not much to know about you, and what little there is I couldn't care less about. You, on the other hand, know as little about me as you do about the rest of the world, and it shows every time you post.
-
It's funny how you simply abandon an earlier talking point whenever I prove you wrong. Here's the thing, though: there's not much to know about you, and what little there is I couldn't care less about. You, on the other hand, know as little about me as you do about the rest of the world, and it shows every time you post.
Oh right, like what? Funny coming from you when I've torn your posts apart and proved you wrong and then you just give up. You have a short memory. Keep going with the path you're on, feeding from the media like it's a drip. Next your like will lose in France and then in Germany. Who knows, if Sweden keeps destroying itself the right wing will rise there too :hahaha:
-
:LMAO:
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/swedish-asylum-support-far-right-nationalist-sweden-democrats
:hahaha:
-
Sorry, did you have a point?
-
Back on topic, I can't stand her - I think she's evil. She's fucking soulless, utterly self-serving and an unpleasant careerist who will pander to unsavoury forces to further her own desires. Her instincts are illiberal and fly in the face of both evidence (as with the Psychoactive Substances Bill) and common decency (remember the 'fuck off home' vans? no wonder hate crimes have gone through the fucking roof since the referendum).
I've skipped most of the slanging match save to say I can't take anyone who uses the term remainiac seriously, it undermines whatever else your point was. I do agree that the rule of law must be respected as regards constitutional change, the result cannot simply be overturned but no mandate was given as to what form our exit from the EU should take and it is correct that this should be debated by our elected representatives and not simply decided by the likes of May and David fucking Davis ffs. The judges were simply upholding the law of the land, as they are duty bound to do.
-
Sorry, did you have a point?
Just proving the rise of the 'far right' in Sweden.
-
Back on topic, I can't stand her - I think she's evil. She's fucking soulless, utterly self-serving and an unpleasant careerist who will pander to unsavoury forces to further her own desires. Her instincts are illiberal and fly in the face of both evidence (as with the Psychoactive Substances Bill) and common decency (remember the 'fuck off home' vans? no wonder hate crimes have gone through the fucking roof since the referendum).
I've skipped most of the slanging match save to say I can't take anyone who uses the term remainiac seriously, it undermines whatever else your point was. I do agree that the rule of law must be respected as regards constitutional change, the result cannot simply be overturned but no mandate was given as to what form our exit from the EU should take and it is correct that this should be debated by our elected representatives and not simply decided by the likes of May and David fucking Davis ffs. The judges were simply upholding the law of the land, as they are duty bound to do.
Both Cameron and Osborne said leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market. So we voted to leave the EU meaning we would leave the Single Market, now those fucking parasites are trying to wriggle their way out of it as they expected to win and had no plan ready for a leave vote. One of the judges has been a pro EU activist for years, so I can understand the frustration.
-
I can't agree. The referendum purely asked whether we should remain a member of the European Union, or leave. Many things were stated as facts by both camps during the campaign a good deal of which were untrue - and neither Cameron or Osborne are currently in a position to dictate the terms of anything - neither does the unelected prime minister have a mandate to do so. The judges are right - parliament must have a say. I have to wonder if the referendum were to be rerun - not that I am suggesting this - whether it would have the same outcome, given that the Brexit faction have shown that they also didn't have a coherent plan in the event that they won and that even the much repeated extra money for the NHS was quickly backtracked on after they won.
-
I can't agree. The referendum purely asked whether we should remain a member of the European Union, or leave. Many things were stated as facts by both camps during the campaign a good deal of which were untrue - and neither Cameron or Osborne are currently in a position to dictate the terms of anything - neither does the unelected prime minister have a mandate to do so. The judges are right - parliament must have a say. I have to wonder if the referendum were to be rerun - not that I am suggesting this - whether it would have the same outcome, given that the Brexit faction have shown that they also didn't have a coherent plan in the event that they won and that even the much repeated extra money for the NHS was quickly backtracked on after they won.
Yes, and leaving the EU means leaving the Single Market, as expressed by our Prime Minister and Chancellor at the time. We're not talking about camps or sides, we're talking about the leader of the country and his right hand man. May shouldn't even be in. Cameron should have prepared for both outcomes, but the arrogant cunt and all his cronies and masters only prepared for one outcome, so fuck them all. They can't wriggle out of this without all hell breaking loose. Fuck what would happen if there was another vote, we've had the vote and won, despite the efforts of rancid lying, corporate dick suckers like Blair and Clegg. This should never have gone to court. If we had a Prime Minister who actually serves the people of the country, they would have triggered article 50 immediately, rather than purposely dithering and getting the court ruling to save them. They could be delaying it to see what happens in the elections in France and Germany. Hopefully the establishment gets smashed there too. May has a mandate to do so, it's called the result of the referendum. As I've said, a vote in parliament could be interesting and show who these MP's really work for. A fucking rat like Miliband will have the choice of voting for his constituents who voted to leave the EU or vote for what the banks and the bureaucrats want. These fucking traitors are bound to vote for us to be half out rather than half in. It wasn't up to "the Brexit faction" to have a plan, it was up to the government and they just ran away in tears instead.
-
Does anyone love any leader of their nation?
(I, of course, am the exception.)
-
I would if it was you :worship:
-
I liked Obama even though he reneged on some of his promises.
-
The referendum has no legal standing whatsoever, but the parliament has to be involved if you wish to repeal legislation affecting domestic affairs. This is actually a fairly basic fact and one that Theresa May must have known about when she took office.
I think it's entirely reasonable that the parliament has a say on Brexit, actually.
And, although I have only just been made aware of it, the introduction in the paper proposing the legislation to enable the referendum clearly stated that it was advisory - presumably for parliament. Somehow, this seems to have been interpreted as binding in some way later on. My suspicion is that Dave set this up without any inkling of just how "wrong" it could go.
-
I liked Obama even though he reneged on some of his promises.
His overall track record for keeping them is still probably good. Even among the failures and partial successes, there's not much he promised which wasn't actively pursued.
-
I liked Obama even though he reneged on some of his promises.
What'd you like best, his drone bombings of barbecues and funerals etc? His spineless support for Israel's massacres? Him coming close to sparking a nuclear war with Pakistan? His help to destroy Libya, Syria and Yemen? His continuation of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
-
Now I will admit freely to not having checked this, but I have read that the ONLY country which does not freely trade, and bugger the single market, with the EU, is north korea. The whole 'we would lose our ability to trade with the EU' thing sounds to me like scaremongering and frankly, complete, total and utter abject bollocks.
As to whether I love the leader of my country QV, as far as I am concerned we do not currently have one. We have a slimy little annelid of a parasitic nature and of a cretinous, most deeply unpleasant species. Some filthy little critter that evolved, regrettably so, in some vile little cave somewhere or other and which would be an excellent improvement of the country were she to fuck off back too whatever slime-festooned rock she slithered her way out from under and never come back out.
And the psychoactive substances bill is a disgusting monstrosity. The claim to be protecting the british people from harm is utter fucking guff. A moronic, ill thought out and selfserving pile of garbage. It specifically excludes caffeine, alcohol (ethanol, and presumably not other, non-taxed but consumable and indeed safer alcohols, such as for example, tertiary pentyl alcohol, which unlike EtOH does not get metabolized either to a toxic aldehyde (acetaldehyde in the case of EtOH) or some nasty ass, not so frankly toxic but all the same rotten hangover inducing ketone metabolite, in the case of iPA this would be acetone), tertiary alcohols do not easily undergo oxidation and whilst I do not remember if they are metabolized or excreted unchanged, 2-methyl-butan-2-ol is actually much less toxic, far more potent by weight (a beverage is unneeded, only dilution of the pure substance until it does not burn when tasted, the dose of the pure tert-amyl (amyl is just a synonym for pentyl, the 5-carbon radical giving rise to the alkane pentane, the various pentyl/amyl alcohols, alkenes the pentenes etc) alcohol is just a few milliliters, and I myself have tried it and found that the claim of its being hangover free are quite accurate. It was unlike alcohol quite pleasant actually to me ( I do drink ethyl alcohol on occasionally but am not much of a fan of getting soused on it, I do not despise people who do wish to as long as their conduct is not that of a dickhead when drunk, and indeed I have a beer open in front of me now, although its taken me from morning until nearly 10pm to drink but half of it. Drunk? not in the least, it has merely served to quench my thirst.
And when the govt are creaming off (read-baldly stealing from those who did work to earn the money they have from the tobacco and finished products containing it, the growers and shopkeepers) 98% of the entirety of the money coming from that tobacco, and are allowing, the highly taxed alcohol, and yet claiming to be protecting 'their' citizenry from the harm not just from established compounds and plant parts known either widely to be or that the bulk of evidence shows that responsibly used, or in the case of some things like weed, to be of very low to low or moderate harm potential, such as MDMA/MDA/methylone (methylone is the beta-ketone homolog of MDMA, as methcathinone is to methamphetamine, methylone is to MDMA. If one takes ephedrine/pseudoephedrine and reduces the beta-hydroxy group to a hydrocarbon, one has the drug methamphetamine, if one oxidizes it such as, and this method takes great care in the doing of, to avoid screwing it up and overoxidizing to the carboxylic acid, oxidizes using very dilute potassium permanganate over say 24 hours at cold temperatures (in the fridge will do) or perhaps pyridinium chromochromate would work then one has methcathinone, the alcoholic hydroxyl (C-OH) oxidized to a ketone (C-C=O)
-
Sorry, did you have a point?
Just proving the rise of the 'far right' in Sweden.
So far they have surprisingly little influence. They've had a few scandals but no real say in anything.
-
The referendum has no legal standing whatsoever, but the parliament has to be involved if you wish to repeal legislation affecting domestic affairs. This is actually a fairly basic fact and one that Theresa May must have known about when she took office.
I think it's entirely reasonable that the parliament has a say on Brexit, actually.
And, although I have only just been made aware of it, the introduction in the paper proposing the legislation to enable the referendum clearly stated that it was advisory - presumably for parliament. Somehow, this seems to have been interpreted as binding in some way later on. My suspicion is that Dave set this up without any inkling of just how "wrong" it could go.
Oh yes, he never paused to think about the consequences because he wanted to score a cheap political point. I don't think anyone really thought it through, save for the think tanks that never had any real say.
I still find it odd that a government would consider such a radical change without allowing the parliament to have a say.
-
Now I will admit freely to not having checked this, but I have read that the ONLY country which does not freely trade, and bugger the single market, with the EU, is north korea. The whole 'we would lose our ability to trade with the EU' thing sounds to me like scaremongering and frankly, complete, total and utter abject bollocks.
You might want to read up on this before making assumptions. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_market) is a good start.
-
Sorry, did you have a point?
Just proving the rise of the 'far right' in Sweden.
So far they have surprisingly little influence. They've had a few scandals but no real say in anything.
And I didn't say that had any influence, just that they are on the rise. Keep flooding Sweden with flows of migrants and they will rise even faster.
-
Sorry, did you have a point?
Just proving the rise of the 'far right' in Sweden.
So far they have surprisingly little influence. They've had a few scandals but no real say in anything.
And I didn't say that had any influence, just that they are on the rise. Keep flooding Sweden with flows of migrants and they will rise even faster.
I guess you and the rest of the Party would know, eh?
-
Just seeing what you are blind to. I don't know anything about the party, they're probably idiots, but you get what you deserve.
-
Ah, but you do know the ideology if not this particular instance.
-
I know if you have net migration figure of around 300,000, with people being poured in who aren't European, then you're going to have some serious problems.
-
Like your soulmates burning down the refugee housing.
-
Like your soulmates burning down the refugee housing.
For one I don't subscribe to violence and/or blaming immigrants. Secondly, they aren't refugees.
-
Like your soulmates burning down the refugee housing.
For one I don't subscribe to violence and/or blaming immigrants. Secondly, they aren't refugees.
What is the term you'd use for people who fled a country being torn apart? Holiday makers?
-
Like your soulmates burning down the refugee housing.
For one I don't subscribe to violence and/or blaming immigrants. Secondly, they aren't refugees.
What is the term you'd use for people who fled a country being torn apart? Holiday makers?
For a start, there are lots that aren't "fleeing", they are illegal migrants trying to take advantage of the "refugee crisis". The swarms of rapists that poured into Germany certainly weren't "refugees". Also, once a refugee has found refuge in a safe country like Turkey or France, they are no longer "refugees". Try and read that all slowly so it sinks in. I know what the media has spoon fed you will be difficult for someone like you to ignore.
-
Like your soulmates burning down the refugee housing.
For one I don't subscribe to violence and/or blaming immigrants. Secondly, they aren't refugees.
What is the term you'd use for people who fled a country being torn apart? Holiday makers?
For a start, there are lots that aren't "fleeing", they are illegal migrants trying to take advantage of the "refugee crisis". The swarms of rapists that poured into Germany certainly weren't "refugees". Also, once a refugee has found refuge in a safe country like Turkey or France, they are no longer "refugees". Try and read that all slowly so it sinks in. I know what the media has spoon fed you will be difficult for someone like you to ignore.
:facepalm:
-
Can't respond, bigot?
-
Can't respond, bigot?
You really need to stop using words you don't understand, Benji.
-
Can't respond, bigot?
You really need to stop using words you don't understand, Benji.
I understand them perfectly. Just because the 'liberal' press etc has hijacked the word and you agree with them, it doesn't make you correct. Anyone who isn't a moron can quite simply look at the dictionary definition of the word and realise that you are the number one bigot on this site. I know you won't understand that, because you don't understand what the word means.
-
Can't respond, bigot?
You really need to stop using words you don't understand, Benji.
I understand them perfectly. Just because the 'liberal' press etc has hijacked the word and you agree with them, it doesn't make you correct. Anyone who isn't a moron can quite simply look at the dictionary definition of the word and realise that you are the number one bigot on this site. I know you won't understand that, because you don't understand what the word means.
Still getting it wrong, Benji. :laugh:
-
Have I posted my butt in this one yet? Here's me scratching it. :zoinks:
(http://www.poopreport.com/sites/default/files/itchy%20butt%20gopher.jpg?1313405582)
-
:lol1:
-
Have I posted my butt in this one yet? Here's me scratching it. :zoinks:
(http://www.poopreport.com/sites/default/files/itchy%20butt%20gopher.jpg?1313405582)
Isn't that your cousin?
-
Have I posted my butt in this one yet? Here's me scratching it. :zoinks:
(http://www.poopreport.com/sites/default/files/itchy%20butt%20gopher.jpg?1313405582)
Isn't that your cousin?
Could be. :zoinks:
-
You wanted to say something?
-
Is this about my butt? Somehow my butt scratching photo has disappeared. Here's a new one. :zoinks:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xwE0rBDpg1Y/SXVAiEGFinI/AAAAAAAADec/5sH-NGbqUiA/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/funny-animal-photos-scratching-beaver.jpg)
-
Is your butt named Theresa May? :P
-
It is now. :zoinks:
-
It's fitting.