NationStates

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:09 pm**

Unchecked Expansion wrote:Look up what the House of Lords does. They review, but they don't have much authority to make law.
And the Lords Spiritual are 4% of that House. Not exactly lawmakers

And the Lords Spiritual don't actually vote anymore.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:09 pm**

Cosmopoles wrote:
Mindhar wrote:Wait, trying to get a room at a bed and breakfast is disgusting?

I hate to think of all the people I must have offended with my heathenish, attention-whoring acts the last time I visited the Lake District....

If God had wanted us to stay at B&Bs he wouldn't have given us hotels.

Oh Lord, forgive me. The smell of bacon befouled my senses, and I knew not what I did.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:10 pm**

North Suran wrote:
The Bleeding Roses wrote:Actually champ... they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual

Do a little reading first, champ.

The House of Lords doesn't tend to make much legislation.

And I highly doubt they attend or vote often, anyway.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:10 pm**

North Suran wrote:
The Bleeding Roses wrote:Actually champ... they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual

Do a little reading first, champ.

The House of Lords doesn't tend to make much legislation.

My undergraduate Poli Sci advisor from back in the day earned his PhD in European politics champ, had to watch my fair share of HoL and HoC videos when i visited him. The HoL does have the ability to legislate in certain capacities... Saying otherwise is just plain untruthful.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:11 pm**

The Bleeding Roses wrote:
North Suran wrote:Do a little reading first, champ.

The House of Lords doesn't tend to make much legislation.

My undergraduate Poli Sci advisor from back in the day earned his PhD in European politics champ, had to watch my fair share of HoL and HoC videos when i visited him. The HoL does have the ability to legislate in certain capacities... Saying otherwise is just plain untruthful.

But he didn't say otherwise.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:11 pm**

The Bleeding Roses wrote:
North Suran wrote:Do a little reading first, champ.

The House of Lords doesn't tend to make much legislation.

My undergraduate Poli Sci advisor from back in the day earned his PhD in European politics champ, had to watch my fair share of HoL and HoC videos when i visited him. The HoL does have the ability to legislate in certain capacities... Saying otherwise is just plain untruthful.

A vast majority (read: almost all) of legislation goes through the House of Commons, which can also overrule the House of Lords. The Lords introduce the odd Bill, but they're far from a legislative chamber of parliament. All this ignores the fact that the Lords Spiritual don't actually vote on legislation, anyway.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:11 pm**

The Bleeding Roses wrote:My undergraduate Poli Sci advisor from back in the day earned his PhD in European politics champ, had to watch my fair share of HoL and HoC videos when i visited him. The HoL does have the ability to legislate in certain capacities... Saying otherwise is just plain untruthful.

What capacities?

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:12 pm**

Ceannairceach wrote:
The Bleeding Roses wrote:My undergraduate Poli Sci advisor from back in the day earned his PhD in European politics champ, had to watch my fair share of HoL and HoC videos when i visited him. The HoL does have the ability to legislate in certain capacities... Saying otherwise is just plain untruthful.

But he didn't say otherwise.

By asserting I need to read up on the HoL he was making that point. Reading between the lines will do you some good in life.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:13 pm**

The Bleeding Roses wrote:
Ceannairceach wrote:But he didn't say otherwise.

By asserting I need to read up on the HoL he was making that point. Reading between the lines will do you some good in life.

As it will for you.

He said that they don't tend to do much legislation. That means, to the average mind, that they do some but not much.

I don't know what the fuck you were reading, but I might want a copy.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:14 pm**

The Bleeding Roses wrote:
Ceannairceach wrote:But he didn't say otherwise.

By asserting I need to read up on the HoL he was making that point. Reading between the lines will do you some good in life.

Reading at all would do likewise for you. You said: "The HoL does have the ability to legislate in certain capacities... Saying otherwise is just plain untruthful." That rather explicitly asserts that I was "saying otherwise" to the House of Lords being able to legislate, not about your ignorance of the House of Lords.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:18 pm**

Cosmopoles wrote:
Unchecked Expansion wrote:Look up what the House of Lords does. They review, but they don't have much authority to make law.
And the Lords Spiritual are 4% of that House. Not exactly lawmakers

And the Lords Spiritual don't actually vote anymore.

Source?

Last I checked, the proposed reforms as mentioned in:
http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2010/04/ ... -2010-p-4/
were never implemented with labour being washed out of the top spot.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:21 pm**

North Suran wrote:
The Bleeding Roses wrote:By asserting I need to read up on the HoL he was making that point. Reading between the lines will do you some good in life.

Reading at all would do likewise for you. You said: "The HoL does have the ability to legislate in certain capacities... Saying otherwise is just plain untruthful." That rather explicitly asserts that I was "saying otherwise" to the House of Lords being able to legislate, not about your ignorance of the House of Lords.

Last edited by North Suran on Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:23 pm**

The Bleeding Roses wrote:
North Suran wrote:Reading at all would do likewise for you. You said: "The HoL does have the ability to legislate in certain capacities... Saying otherwise is just plain untruthful." That rather explicitly asserts that I was "saying otherwise" to the House of Lords being able to legislate, not about your ignorance of the House of Lords.

Last edited by North Suran on Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

*Yawn*
Not useful unless you tell us what it was before he edited.

I edit shite a lot to correct spelling or add something. Your point?

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:23 pm**

US should decide right now.

Yes to gay rights, or no. MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND AND WE WON'T HAVE THESE PROBLEMS.

Fuckin' faggots...

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:23 pm**

I support Proposition 8, as I believe homosexuality is wrong (don't bother flaming, as I won't change my views), but going as far to deny them a room is pretty screwed up.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:24 pm**

Nekronia wrote:US should decide right now.

This story is from the UK

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:24 pm**

Nekronia wrote:US should decide right now.

Yes to gay rights, or no. MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND AND WE WON'T HAVE THESE PROBLEMS.

Fuckin' faggots...

Uh... Ignoring that last bit... We're dealing with the UK here, I believe.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:24 pm**

Slow news day

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:24 pm**

The Bleeding Roses wrote:
North Suran wrote:Reading at all would do likewise for you. You said: "The HoL does have the ability to legislate in certain capacities... Saying otherwise is just plain untruthful." That rather explicitly asserts that I was "saying otherwise" to the House of Lords being able to legislate, not about your ignorance of the House of Lords.

Last edited by North Suran on Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

And your post? Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:12 pm.

So unless you're accusing me of being Doc Brown...

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:24 pm**

Lawrenslavia wrote:I support Proposition 8, as I believe homosexuality is wrong (don't bother flaming, as I won't change my views), but going as far to deny them a room is pretty screwed up.

Please, explain why its/I'm wrong.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:24 pm**

Fartsniffage wrote:
Dakini wrote:What do you think the odds are the business owner loudly proclaims on their website that they expect non-married couples to stay in separate rooms and that they don't count civil unions as marriages?

So what do you think the odds are that this couple drove all the way out there to find only then that they were expected to pay for two different rooms?

They did have it one their website.

Edit: Still do.

Maybe the couple skipped the "one man one woman" part and just noted the "no double rooms for unmarried couples" part? If civil unions are the same as married in the UK, they probably consider that part to apply to them.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:26 pm**

The Bleeding Roses wrote:
Cosmopoles wrote:
And the Lords Spiritual don't actually vote anymore.

Source?

Last I checked, the proposed reforms as mentioned in:
http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2010/04/ ... -2010-p-4/
were never implemented with labour being washed out of the top spot.

Last edited by The Bleeding Roses on Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Look at that, I too can prove absolutely nothing.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:26 pm**

The Bleeding Roses wrote:
Dakini wrote:They were going to pay to stay in the place until the owners refused to let them stay in one room.

At any rate, it's not clear to me that they took anything other than a bunch of shit from a bigoted B&B owner.

Isn't it quite obvious? These dipshits wanted to make a scene... Radical homosexuality at work.

Step 1. Obvious PDA that is disgusting regardless of whether or not a couple is same sex or not
Step 2. Find someone to call you out on it.
Step 3. Lawyer up and contact the ACLU, liberal media, and the gay bowling league listserv.
Step 4. March
Step 5. Repeat

How were they planning on engaging in obvious PDA in their B&B room?

I also wasn't aware that the ACLU existed in the UK.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:26 pm**

North Suran wrote:
The Bleeding Roses wrote:Last edited by North Suran on Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

And your post? Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:12 pm.

So unless you're accusing me of being Doc Brown...

Hehe, you two are so precious, never change <3

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:27 pm**

Dakini wrote:
The Bleeding Roses wrote:This is purely a property rights issue seeing as the UK isn't a secular state...

I will always side with owners rather than ~~takers.~~ paying customers.

Fixed.

except they aren't paying customers if they are refused service
bad Business decision surely, but people are under no obligation to be good business men

NationStates

Homosexual Couple Win B&B Bed Ban Case