Why stop at 75. How about 16 as well? If at that time of life you are already clinically obese because you like to slob out in front of the telly or computer screen shouldn't your light glow red as much as your great grandad's. It was red wasn't it?.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
A person's age is revealed by their palm flower crystal embedded in the palm of their right hand that changes color every seven years, yellow (age 0–6), then blue (age 7–13), then red (age 14–20), then blinks red and black on Lastday, and finally turns black at 21.
21 in the book
30 in the movie
the tv version was only 14 episodes long
i thought it was much longer
Last edited:
Was I involved in a discussion with you about it at sometime ?
Sorry I have a real life and can’t remember if we did.
You're spot on seen so much deflection and bullshit by people who either support, or claim 'not to support but'. Corbyn does a harmless if not a touch silly festival and it's headline news to some, yet absolute cruelty to innocent children gets ignored. Well less than a month to the Trump protests now, I shall be making my way down
Trump is effectively saying "Give me $25 billion for my wall. If you do, you can have your children back."
A Texan guard at a detention centre is arrested and charged with sexual assault on a 4 year old girl, threatening her to keep quiet or her mother will get deported.
Every single Democrat in Congress has signed a motion calling for this practice to stop. Not one Republican has signed it.
Trump continues to lie about this, saying that it's a law (it isn't) and that he can't change it (he can, with a single phone call that he refuses to make.
Jeff Sessions goes on national TV (Fox, of course) to explain the differences between what they are doing and what the Nazis did to Jewish children during the Holocaust. he says that the difference is that "Nazis were trying to stop the Jews leaving the country." Yes.
Ann Coulter, right-wing 'commentator' accuses the children - some as young as a year old - of being trained child actors. The same tactic they used after the Parkland School massacre.
Meanwhile...... Theresa May is not cancelling Trump's visit in July. We are still rolling out the red carpet to a dictator who is currently carrying our state-sponsored kidnap, false imprisonment and child abuse. Alongside all the other things, of course, that Mueller and Avenatti are exposing on a daily basis.
The visit should be cancelled IMMEDIATELY.
A Texan guard at a detention centre is arrested and charged with sexual assault on a 4 year old girl, threatening her to keep quiet or her mother will get deported.
Every single Democrat in Congress has signed a motion calling for this practice to stop. Not one Republican has signed it.
Trump continues to lie about this, saying that it's a law (it isn't) and that he can't change it (he can, with a single phone call that he refuses to make.
Jeff Sessions goes on national TV (Fox, of course) to explain the differences between what they are doing and what the Nazis did to Jewish children during the Holocaust. he says that the difference is that "Nazis were trying to stop the Jews leaving the country." Yes.
Ann Coulter, right-wing 'commentator' accuses the children - some as young as a year old - of being trained child actors. The same tactic they used after the Parkland School massacre.
Meanwhile...... Theresa May is not cancelling Trump's visit in July. We are still rolling out the red carpet to a dictator who is currently carrying our state-sponsored kidnap, false imprisonment and child abuse. Alongside all the other things, of course, that Mueller and Avenatti are exposing on a daily basis.
The visit should be cancelled IMMEDIATELY.
Congratulations virtual signallers as Trump backs down from separating kids from their illegal immigrant parents.
Elsewhere the number of students graduating with a first class degree is now at 26%, compared to 8% in 1995. In my year at Uni (1982!), their were two firsts in my subject (not me) - the third and fourth ever awarded in it. One of the blokes who got a first went on to be a professor in the subject at Cambridge, after playing on the wing for England at rugby a few times. Clearly the new generation is much cleverer than previous ones, despite the conflicting evidence that for those born after 1975 average IQ has fallen quite a lot.
What a shame, and what a devaluation of a degree. Speculation that it’s because students complain because they are paying and the universities don’t want to upset them and damage their own chances of generating income by awarding lower degrees. Also a shame as I’m pretty sure A levels are harder now than when I first took them. My daughter has just finished hers (and now appears to live in nightclubs) and you have to answer questions in a very detailed and accurate way to get points. Again speculation that this is all defensive, ‘marking schemes’ allow people who could not possibly pass the exam to mark them, which of course means that they cannot identify, let alone reward, individuality and originality. My daughter’s teachers have told her (and me) that some of her stuff is ‘too good’ on occasion, and just to go for the marks. As not expressing her views is not her strong point (no idea where she gets that from) it’s a hard ask.
Meanwhile in France, the baccalaureate requires all 18 year olds to study a broader range of subjects (they all have to do at least some maths and science and language). The philosophy exam this year included the question ‘Is desire the mark of our imperfection?’ Brilliant.
Elsewhere the number of students graduating with a first class degree is now at 26%, compared to 8% in 1995. In my year at Uni (1982!), their were two firsts in my subject (not me) - the third and fourth ever awarded in it. One of the blokes who got a first went on to be a professor in the subject at Cambridge, after playing on the wing for England at rugby a few times. Clearly the new generation is much cleverer than previous ones, despite the conflicting evidence that for those born after 1975 average IQ has fallen quite a lot.
What a shame, and what a devaluation of a degree. Speculation that it’s because students complain because they are paying and the universities don’t want to upset them and damage their own chances of generating income by awarding lower degrees. Also a shame as I’m pretty sure A levels are harder now than when I first took them. My daughter has just finished hers (and now appears to live in nightclubs) and you have to answer questions in a very detailed and accurate way to get points. Again speculation that this is all defensive, ‘marking schemes’ allow people who could not possibly pass the exam to mark them, which of course means that they cannot identify, let alone reward, individuality and originality. My daughter’s teachers have told her (and me) that some of her stuff is ‘too good’ on occasion, and just to go for the marks. As not expressing her views is not her strong point (no idea where she gets that from) it’s a hard ask.
Meanwhile in France, the baccalaureate requires all 18 year olds to study a broader range of subjects (they all have to do at least some maths and science and language). The philosophy exam this year included the question ‘Is desire the mark of our imperfection?’ Brilliant.
Last edited:
all that stuff regarding education is bang on the money.
I don't know whether its because the teachers want to be as nice as possible or because theres some incentive (this university lecture who was a lovely person and didn't seem cynical to me) but in one of my university modules, she literally did a "revision" session where we go through past papers before the exam. Every question we went through was pretty much word for word exactly the same as the exam paper. Needless to say, i smashed that exam out the park.
Not illegal. A little research goes a long way mate. Try it.
Most of those separated from parents crossed at official border points seeking asylum, which is fully legal. Even those who didn't, it's classed as a misdemeanor, on par with public drunkenness. So there's no criminal activity here (unless you are foolish or naive enough to believe anything Trump, Miller, Sessions or Huckabee Sanders says).
These people have commited NO crime, and yet they now face indefinite detention, and those families already separated have no idea where their children are, no clue as to how they find them, and are getting no assistance whatsoever from the US government. Trump's latest photo-op signature is as meaningless as Chamberlain's white paper. It does NOT solve the problem that Trump himself created, and it does NOTHING to prevent the ongoing illegal detention and abuse of thousands of children who still have no future with their parents. 78 kids have even been passed to an adoption agency. Yes - an ADOPTION agency.
This isn't about right or left, it's about right or wrong. Continuing to keep these families apart and incarcerated is WRONG. and Trump hs done nothing to solve the problem he caused.
Another example for my paper, cheers.
Described on the BBC, and by a Trump Opponent who was interviewed, as ‘illegal migrants’.
So... two sources, as opposed to the hundreds out there, and your mind is made up? Well done. Maybe you should look at what the US law says. As I did. You'll find that there is overwhelming legal precedent and constitutional documents that show that their arrival is - in the vast majority of cases - NOT illegal under US law. Just because Trump wants to turn his base against these 'animals' who will 'infest their land' (both direct quotes from him) doesn't mean what he is saying is in any way true.
Meanwhile, in the world of compassion and empathy, there are no plans to re-unite the 2.347 children that have been forcibly, and unlawfully, removed from their parents. Trump's response to being called out for these human rights atrocities? Quit the Human Rights convention.
It's a humanitarian crisis all of his making, and it's not something I or millions upon millions of others will stop raising until it's fully resolved, with all families re-united, due process for all of them according to the correct legal precedents, and proper consequences in place for those who have perpetrated this act of state sponsored cruelty and abuse.
Meanwhile, in the world of compassion and empathy, there are no plans to re-unite the 2.347 children that have been forcibly, and unlawfully, removed from their parents. Trump's response to being called out for these human rights atrocities? Quit the Human Rights convention.
It's a humanitarian crisis all of his making, and it's not something I or millions upon millions of others will stop raising until it's fully resolved, with all families re-united, due process for all of them according to the correct legal precedents, and proper consequences in place for those who have perpetrated this act of state sponsored cruelty and abuse.
No, my mind isn’t made up on anything at all. And it never will be.
How do you think raising this topic (which you are of course perfectly entitled to do) on a small British football forum, will help reunite these families?
I raise it on all platforms that I have access to. Did you really think this is the only place I'm raising this?
As I'm UK and not US based, I can't join marches - which I would certainly do. But I can keep talking about this, keep up pressure via social media, lobby politicians (both here and US) via email and online, donate to funds which work towards reversing the effects of this disgusting policy, and - as I am doing here - keep the facts about this in front of everybody's eyes.
There are, as I said above, 2,347 children currently living in internment camps in the US. Their parents do not know where their children are. The authorities (HHS, ORR and ICE) are refusing to assist them in finding their children. Some are being put up for adoption, meaning they would NEVER see their parents again. and Trump is only interested in a photo op. His 'executive order' is irrelevant, as there never was a law that made them take these children, all it needed was a phone call. All it STILL needs is a phone call, instructing the authorities to do everything possible to reunite families. But he won't make that call, because he's that cruel.
If there are no illegal immigrants, how come Obama, that fascist bastard, deported over 3 million of them, Willy?
False equivalency. And showing zero compassion and empathy, something I hoped wouldn’t be demonstrated by any members here.
I did not say that there were no illegal immigrants. I said that the people whose children Trumps heinous policy stole were not, on the whole, illegal immigrants. The vast majority applied for asylum at border points. And those that didn’t committed a misdemeanour, not a crime.
Even if it WERE illegal, do you really think stealing their children and then -don’t forget - LOSING some of them, is ok? If you do, e don’t have a difference in politics, we have a difference in morality.
Also (and I can’t believe this is the least pathetic and unconscionable thing you wrote) did you really call Obama a fascist? Really? I think you need to go look up the meaning of that, and a good few other words...
The fascist comment was intended to be sardonic. Clearly flew over your head.
Of course I'm against taking children away from their parents as it has been done in the US. But something has to be done about the tides of immigration, and if you don't believe me, take a look at the state the EU is on this at the moment. It could be existential for it.
In what way was your calling Obama a ‘fascist bastard’ sardonic?
And it sounds very much like you say you’re against it but then maybe not, because ‘something must be done’. Being sardonic again?
And it sounds very much like you say you’re against it but then maybe not, because ‘something must be done’. Being sardonic again?
Whilst i agree, applying for asylum at the border is not illegal and it's incredibly harsh to separate the families and i think they should be kept together and where separated as there is now for the families before the bill has been signed, the U.S. should provide assistance to get them re-united.
From what i'm reading though, anyone crossing the border and then seeking asylum (can you even seek asylum without crossing the border?) are then placed in jail effectively. minors cannot go to these jails.
Under obamas administration, they were initially kept together in jail, until it was made controversial and they were effectively free to go until their court date (some of whom didn't bother to turn up for whatever reason) and as such illegal immigration was made easy.
Trump has clamped down on this but obviously without being able to legally keep the children in jail they get separated. Haven't read how he'll stop families being split up now.
Whether you agree with this clamping down on immigration is dependent on your view of a freedom of movement in this world or against it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...es-being-separated-at-the-us-border-explainer
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-family-separations-but-shirks-responsibility
Guardian is calling it illegal immigration and i would like to to think they would have researched it properly as this is totally against the values that the paper holds
It's about having basic human decency, it's not about political views or any opinion over freedom of movement. Taking children from parents and shipping them thousands of miles away with no legal or moral reason to do so is child abuse.
There's a Democrat bill in progress, the Keeping Families Together bill, which is being introduced. It has the support and signature of all 49 Democrat senators. To their eternal shame, not a single Republican senator has signed it. It would, if made law, prevent this from happening again AND address the issue of the currently disparate families. Yet nobody on the right will support it.
I wonder why...
There's a Democrat bill in progress, the Keeping Families Together bill, which is being introduced. It has the support and signature of all 49 Democrat senators. To their eternal shame, not a single Republican senator has signed it. It would, if made law, prevent this from happening again AND address the issue of the currently disparate families. Yet nobody on the right will support it.
I wonder why...