UK Politics Thread V: Upon This Blasted Heath

ISideWith UK · by **Eastfield Lodge** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 2:57 pm

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Eastfield Lodge wrote:Poppers aren't illicit.

Well, illicit isn't technically "illegal".

illicit
ɪˈlɪsɪt/Submit
adjective
forbidden by law, rules, or custom.
"illicit drugs"
synonyms: illegal, unlawful, illegitimate, against the law;

by **Balkenreich** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 2:57 pm

what the hell is a popper?

by **Ifreann** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 2:58 pm

Souseiseki wrote:unless i have missed something big, the drugs keith vaz is known to use are not illicit. they should be. but they're not. because parliamentarians use them.

Sure you need a bit of the ol' alkyl-nitrite after a hard day criminalising all the drugs the peasants use. And possibly any number of other things, who knows?

ISideWith UK · by **Eastfield Lodge** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 2:59 pm

Lamadia III wrote:
Eastfield Lodge wrote:Poppers aren't illicit.

I didn't suggest that they were- only that they sound very odd, and have the sort of name which makes you want to shift uncomfortably. Perhaps it's just me?

Lamadia III wrote:now seen discussing illicit substances with two male escorts

What?

by **Anywhere Else But Here** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:00 pm

Eastfield Lodge wrote:
Lamadia III wrote:I didn't suggest that they were- only that they sound very odd, and have the sort of name which makes you want to shift uncomfortably. Perhaps it's just me?

Lamadia III wrote:now seen discussing illicit substances with two male escorts

What?

Well, she didn't suggest that they were illicit; she outright stated it.

by **Napkiraly** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:01 pm

Balkenreich wrote:what the hell is a popper?

A pastry dish.

by **The Nihilistic view** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:04 pm

Celritannia wrote:
The Nihilistic view wrote:
"It's 2016!" And? So what about other countries? What they do is irrelevant. That's not an argument.

So tradition is more important than transforming our insufficient political system to a more encompassing system between Parliament, Government and the people?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I

Given the civil strife in many places on the continent they are certainly not inherently better systems to provide those things that you say they do. In fact given many of the parties people are turning to are more extreme than UKIP or evej the Greens one can only conclude they do nothing of the sort of which you claim. You have an ideological push here not a practical one, certainly not one that will make any difference to how people view the established politicians.

The only possible answer here is British people are somehow inherently superior by their reduced tendency to elect extremes. Thus the continental systems will work much better when British people are running them. I think we all agree however that is complete nonsense.

There is a problem with a disconnect between politicians and the people they serve in all of Europe, that has nothing to do with the constitutional setups. That is entirely down to the actions of the politicians themselves.

by **Imperializt Russia** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:04 pm

Eastfield Lodge wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:Well, illicit isn't technically "illegal".

illicit
ɪˈlɪsɪt/Submit
adjective
forbidden by law, rules, or custom.
"illicit drugs"
synonyms: illegal, unlawful, illegitimate, against the law;

Or custom.

Regardless of legality, in a conservative mindset, poppers will always be illicit.

Balkenreich wrote:what the hell is a popper?

Cheap high. I've seen people take them at a party. It's a little bottle of some kind of chemical.
Don't know anything about it myself.

by **The Nihilistic view** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:05 pm

Napkiraly wrote:
Balkenreich wrote:what the hell is a popper?

A pastry dish.

Something that goes on a coat to close the flap over the zip?

by **Balkenreich** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:06 pm

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Eastfield Lodge wrote:
illicit
ɪˈlɪsɪt/Submit
adjective
forbidden by law, rules, or custom.
"illicit drugs"
synonyms: illegal, unlawful, illegitimate, against the law;

Or custom.

Regardless of legality, in a conservative mindset, poppers will always be illicit.
Balkenreich wrote:what the hell is a popper?

Cheap high. I've seen people take them at a party. It's a little bottle of some kind of chemical.
Don't know anything about it myself.

When you play too much Fallout and equate psycho-jet with popper.

by **Imperializt Russia** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:08 pm

Apparently it's a gay thing.
Poppers, cannabis and GHB are all popular in the gay scene for, er... certain physiological effects.

by **Anywhere Else But Here** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:08 pm

The Nihilistic view wrote:
Napkiraly wrote:A pastry dish.

Something that goes on a coat to close the flap over the zip?

You're both wrong. It's a small explosive toy used at parties.

by **Europa Unita** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:10 pm

Celritannia wrote:
The Nihilistic view wrote:
"It's 2016!" And? So what about other countries? What they do is irrelevant. That's not an argument.

So tradition is more important than transforming our insufficient political system to a more encompassing system between Parliament, Government and the people?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I

Looking at the coalition chaos we have in Germany right now with the MMP system introduced in 1949 I'd say FPTP definitely has its benefits. It produces stable governments that can pull though their program. With a Grand Coalition (Union-SPD) we don't have a clear course. Leftists don't like it because the SPD can't pull through their leftist program and rightists don't like it because the coalition as a whole is more center-left. So people vote for smaller parties but because of MMP this makes Grand Coalitions the only way to form a government. With FPTP we'd just have to vote for the candidates we like and the strongest party would win. We would be able to actually vote the Grand Coalition out of government.

The Scots use MMP, too. It works because they basically all vote for the same party anyway.

ISideWith UK · by **Eastfield Lodge** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:12 pm

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:
The Nihilistic view wrote:
Something that goes on a coat to close the flap over the zip?

You're both wrong. It's a small explosive toy used at parties.

...
I really did not need that image.

by **Imperializt Russia** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:13 pm

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:
The Nihilistic view wrote:
Something that goes on a coat to close the flap over the zip?

You're both wrong. It's a small explosive toy used at parties.

I was going to make a joke about the criminal offence "conspiracy to cause explosions", but when I googled the phrase, the Mirror was talking about conspiracy theories about the SpaceX rocket explosion and now I'm depressed.

by **Balkenreich** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:13 pm

Eastfield Lodge wrote:
Anywhere Else But Here wrote:You're both wrong. It's a small explosive toy used at parties.

...
I really did not need that image.

I used them to clear the house.

by **Lamadia III** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:13 pm

Eastfield Lodge wrote:
Lamadia III wrote:I didn't suggest that they were- only that they sound very odd, and have the sort of name which makes you want to shift uncomfortably. Perhaps it's just me?

Lamadia III wrote:now seen discussing illicit substances with two male escorts

What?

Cocaine had been discussed, which, as far as I am aware, illegal. If I meant those bottom pills were illegal, then I would have said 'including' rather than 'not to mention'.

by **Imperializt Russia** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:14 pm

Lamadia III wrote:
Eastfield Lodge wrote:
What?

Cocaine had been discussed, which, as far as I am aware, illegal. If I meant those bottom pills were illegal, then I would have said 'including' rather than 'not to mention'.

"Not to mention" usually implies a meaning of "including".

by **The Nihilistic view** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:15 pm

Eastfield Lodge wrote:
Anywhere Else But Here wrote:You're both wrong. It's a small explosive toy used at parties.

...
I really did not need that image.

Ooh the deflagration! Suit you sir!

ISideWith UK · by **Eastfield Lodge** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:16 pm

Lamadia III wrote:
Eastfield Lodge wrote:
What?

Cocaine had been discussed, which, as far as I am aware, illegal. If I meant those bottom pills were illegal, then I would have said 'including' rather than 'not to mention'.

Fair enough.
As for your feelings of peculiarity, why? You find the idea of people taking drugs for sexual pleasure odd?

by **Imperializt Russia** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:17 pm

Eastfield Lodge wrote:
Lamadia III wrote:Cocaine had been discussed, which, as far as I am aware, illegal. If I meant those bottom pills were illegal, then I would have said 'including' rather than 'not to mention'.

Fair enough.
As for your feelings of peculiarity, why? You find the idea of people taking drugs for sexual pleasure odd?

Viagra is a kosher gift at Passover.

by **Conscentia** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:20 pm

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Balkenreich wrote:what the hell is a popper?

Cheap high. I've seen people take them at a party. It's a little bottle of some kind of chemical.
Don't know anything about it myself.

The chemicals used are alkyl nitrites.

ISideWith UK · by **Eastfield Lodge** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:21 pm

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Lamadia III wrote:Cocaine had been discussed, which, as far as I am aware, illegal. If I meant those bottom pills were illegal, then I would have said 'including' rather than 'not to mention'.

"Not to mention" usually implies a meaning of "including".

Really? I've always used it in the sense of 'in addition to', or 'on top of'.

The Nihilistic view wrote:
Eastfield Lodge wrote:...
I really did not need that image.

Ooh the deflagration! Suit you sir!

Maybe not.

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Eastfield Lodge wrote:Fair enough.
As for your feelings of peculiarity, why? You find the idea of people taking drugs for sexual pleasure odd?

Viagra is a kosher gift at Passover.

...Right.
I'm suddenly remembering the Christmas advert that a porn site had a couple of years back, was covered on Russell Howard's Good News.

by **Wolfmanne2** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:30 pm

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=583E174D

On the subject of the Daily Mail...

by **Imperializt Russia** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:35 pm

Wolfmanne2 wrote:https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14184287_10154064727223264_6896269637695848905_n.jpg?oh=7df79f3e672de9215e0a65947abed6a5&oe=583E174D

On the subject of the Daily Mail...

...
Please tell me you've shooped the DM header onto a BFNN or Daily Mash headline.

Please?

UK Politics Thread V: Upon This Blasted Heath

Which of the following do you want to keep post-Brexit

Who is online