Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Ric, 3 Sep 2017.
But if he did that he'd die. Are you suggesting he should kill himself DD? Surely not.
Never been one recorded case in history of anyone dying by holding their breath, so he’ll probably be ok.....
Public services are in crisis, £34bn in missing taxes, large numbers of people relying on foodbanks, a housing crisis etc., huge but the Govt post Brexit should first be sorting out the legalisation of weed?
Just spat out a mouthful of Vimto.
You do know this stuff causes stains?
OK, apart from grants for bridges, tram stops, new science facilities, council house insulation, the football museum, the Eye Hospital, and another £1billion for the north west, what has the EU done for us?
As I said, it's unrelated to the thread, but it's in the news currently and the arguement that the amount of revenue raised from the taxation of legalisation should be at least looked at. I really don't understand why this urged you to comment on it. The NHS takes the largest cut from taxpayers money; wouldn't it ease the burden to have taxes from marijauna sales pay for NHS subsidies? I don't expect, nor am I asking for an answer, it's a subject for a different thread. It's merely an observation of mine.
You don't have to go into anymore detail than that or use it as a justification for brexit. You're reading into it way, way more than was intended so you can consider this the last post I make on it in this thread. You want to discuss it further, start a legalisatiuon of marijuana thread and i'll join you there.
You are becoming a parody of yourself.
Are you able to reason that Brexit has financial consequences?
All you ever post about is your ideological reasons for wanting to leave the EU.
All posts asking you what happens to us afterwards financially are met with "it's not related to Brexit".
We get it. You won't be affected either way and ideologically it's what you want.
Other people tend, on the whole, to worry about people already struggling to manage now. You don't. That's fine, but it tends to make your opinions selfish and meaningless.
There is a small chance that Brexit can be positive for the UK, if we get through the first 5-10 years of shit it will cause.
That small chance wasn't worth taking the risk for and if we hard Brexit, all bets are off and a lot of people may suffer as a consequence.
Ideology vs reality.
I've been advocating for it before the referendum. I suppose if I mentioned it on a different thread you'd have said nothing. Are you suggesting that i'm saying "brexit will be okay, we can legalise cannabis to make up the shortfall"? Is that what you think the tone of that post was meant to do? Am I not allowed to say anything to other people without you breathing down my neck shouting the odds? Me stating I advocate the idea of legalising cannabis has nothing to do with my ideas on making brexit a success. I was highlighting how this country has a habit of ignoring unexplored methods of gaining capital because of outdated notions, not that the country could use it as a way of softening the financial blow that brexit might cause.
The second half of your rant is just the usual inane, anti-brexit, anti-leavers nonsense i'm come to ignore. I know you don't like me, I know you don't agree with my opinions, and I don't care. Nothing is positive, everything is fucked, we're all doomed. You just want someone to notice you and your protestations about brexit. You hate brexit, you hate leavers for causing brexit, go bore someone else. You disregard and don't care about my concerns about us being in the EU, so why should I bother taking your concerns on board?
Honest question, why do you reply and respond to any of my posts? Do you think you'll change my mind or something? You're acting like a Rag trying to convince a Blue to support United.
I can see how some people would see these examples as presenting reasons to be positive towards the EU ...………………
For me they emphasise the opposite.
Obviously everybody should recognise that not a penny of funding comes from the EU that was not actually the UK's money in the first place - so people have to be willing to believe the argument of...…… - well the UK government would not have provided funding to Manchester, so - if it had not been for the EU...……..
But as someone that has managed processes for applying for ERDF funding I can comment that it is an obscenely bureaucratic and haphazard process - with so much wasted time and money built into the process - not at all an advertisement for the effectiveness of the EU.
The ERDF is a shambolically managed process that requires the UK to go through ridiculously convoluted hoops to get a proportion of the money contributed by the UK to be spent back in the UK.
Probably posted in here somewhere but here us an article from January this yeat about privatization of the NHS