chrisp65

we have a full on porn funnies thread in the illuminati forum

What I find weird, is how just about all coal was cheaper, yet we were exporting it. Guess we must have been exporting it at a loss?

When you've got another point you want to make in another thread, but your name is already on the top four topics so you have to retain that killer thought until somebody else does some posting, rather than look like some saddo.

Hi! I'm troy McClure, you may have seen me in such infomercials as 'eat a beaver, please a cow'.

It didn't do much for me, to be honest. Socratic dialogues always seemed rigged and there is no way he would win an argument on VT. Tbf has anyone ever won an argument on VT ? If I had 20p for every time I find myself pitching an argument I'm not really 100% behind and wondering 'how did I get here?', I'd have £1.60

for anybody with a spare 30 minutes and access via cable or sky to BBC 2 Wales - new music programme on now including the lovely 'Climbing Trees' **** edit flash!!! now showing Houdini Dax from back in the summer at Clwb Ifor Bach I was there! as they say. I'll see if I can spot a sweaty bald head at the back nodding aggressively houdini dax aaaaarghhhhh the woman on there now is doing the whole 10 notes for the price of one singing style, accompanied by the hand waving just in case you mi i i i i ssed all the ex x x x tra no o o o otessssss

yeah fascinating. Would appear that at the start of the war there were no black airmen and potentially only a relative handful of black pilots at all in the U.S. Appears the first (all black, i.e. segregated) USAF squadron had it's first run out in anger in June 1943 - the red tails (as above), or the Tuskegee Airmen. A night's reading ahead. just proves it's always worth being slightly cautious when using wikipedia as a one off unchecked point of reference (as I keep telling my kids as they get mid way through their homework)

It's beyond N word whitewash. How many american regiments in WWII were happily mixed? They were segregated and kept segregated. Black platoons and white platoons would be billeted in a town and given their areas they could go so as not to mix. Was listening to an old lady reminisce on the radio recently, she was from the Forest of Dean and she reckoned they were allocated different chip shops for black soldiers and white soldiers. ok ok it's wikipedia, but ... it would be interesting to see a war film that gave quite such an accurate picture

it's also about crossing the road

something with lots of small detachable parts they get bored otherwise and don't forget, leaded paint, none of this plasticised modern rubbish

Can anyone think of any genuinely leftist or, lord forbid, 'socialist' policies of the last newlabour government? They were more for tinkering and assuring the markets they were harmless, weren't they?

without wishing to go over old ground, it didn't look particularly cheap or cost effective in the coal exporting dock town where I grew up the price paid appeared quite high

woohoo ! prezzies

I get your point to a degree but it's rather disingenuous. It suggests that people are in control of their own environments (and the 'stuff' that goes with them). It's a little like the '1%' of the world is anyone who may 'own' an average house in that there London town upwards. That's conkers, frankly. I disagree. If you believe you have the right to drive a car and use a phone you either have to accept everyone else does, or you accept that you are somehow special and have rights over them. If everyone has a car and a phone, we kill the planet. That's not disingenuous, that's fact. China is rapidly expanding and wants cars, milk, pork etc.. When India does the same, followed by Pakistan and Malaysia etc., we are in real trouble. But all they want is what we already have. So if that can't be safely provided, then the logic is that we must be over consuming as either a privilege or a right.

Would you somehow stop people in these regions watching the 'main' debate where they are told 'these are the five main parties'? These are the guys that could win or influence the outcome? That doesn't feel right. Especially when there will be something like 150 constituencies where neither the Greens or the Lib Dems are standing. Perhaps they also should only be heard where they stand? If the 'regions' were having a separate election then yes, I'd agree with that, but it isn't a separate election. You can't ask people not to watch the main debate because they'll have a little one later with the shadow minister for something coming along. That's either naive or patronising. I have a situation where I'm being told these are the main parties, that suggests these are the ones that could win or influence the result. Yet the greens might not even put up a candidate whereas Plaid already have and their votes in my area can have a direct outcome on the winner in a swing constituency in what will be a tight election. To argue that a party will only get 2 or 3 seats and therefore shouldn't be in the debate is an interesting angle too. I'd suggest the Greens might get no seats at all. Perhaps that party with 2 or 3 might get 4 or 5 with a fair crack of the whip? For me, in my particular area, the current proposal unfairly promotes two fringe parties. We've managed to create quite a messy little system.

What would be the reasoning behind the greens being included but not parties with the same number of MP's or more? Those other parties are based exclusively in only one part of the UK (e.g. the DUP only contest Northern Ireland, SNP with Scotland etc). So, as an example, Plaid have 3 MP's in the House of Commons and are standing in my constituency in the general election. At the last GE Plaid got twice as many votes as UKIP and 7 times more votes than the Greens. The Green Party are not standing in every constituency. Labour and the Lib Dems don't even enter candidates in Northern Ireland. But the Green Party should be in the debate, and Plaid shouldn't? That doesn't appear fantastically fair reasoning to me.

What would be the reasoning behind the greens being included but not parties with the same number of MP's or more?

At what point did you hear Burnham talk? It was just a 10 minute Kirsty Wark ranty monologue. He actually put his hand up at one point and asked to be allowed a turn to speak.

by recent standards, it would take enough to almost cover most of the pavement for this country to grind to a halt

horrific

I'd suggest that anybody that was able to read your question has over consumed. If you have a smart phone, or a tablet, laptop or old school computer you have to be prepared to allow every single person on the planet, all 7.3 billion, to also have one and a method of powering it. Or you are setting yourself apart as an exceptional over consumer. Anybody truly worried about over consumption needs to work out the earth killing statistics involved in everyone eating meat.

pint of bitter ham hock terrine with parsnip crisps and quail egg followed by trio of lamb chop, shepherd's pie and lamb sweetbreads with kale and red cabbage double espresso god bless the expense account, and all who dine on it

Nobody has yet suggested looking how it all stacks up locally and tactical voting?

I'm not going in there. Everyone else is an idiot with wrong opinions.

cup please One new line on the club honours every 7th year, or finishing 17th for the next 135 years? There is utterly utterly completely absolutely no earthly point in finishing 17th out of 92 clubs, year in, year out. It is the very meaning of the phrase 'idiot rich boy spending daddy's money on a futile project to try and buy friends and then losing your bottle like you always do so just **** off'