|
Trickle down grouseonomics.
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 11:17
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
Blue Star Error posted:I disagree with 3 of the 12 points in the OP but I'll never reveal which ones that list is really gay isn't it
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Why does every goddamn trailer have the Inception BWAAAAAAHs in it these days? ~edgy~ also why does every trailer have the entire movie plot in it already
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:This is what a B-movie looks like in 2016. No more terrible props. Just really really bad CGI for everything including simple things like smoke. well_fix_it_in_post.avi
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Given the current mood in Europe I doubt it'd be that hard to stir up an EU embargo against the Saudis, and then declare that the EU will only trade with countries that also adhere. Basically it's clear we need a common EU foreign policy so we can wave a relatively moral dick around big enough to compete with US/Russia/China. Bets on Pigfucker doing his best to prevent an embargo against the Saudis?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Good. (will especially include taping leftist messages to lamp posts)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
Desiderata posted:http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/apps/recalls/searches/expand.asp?uniqueID=F0E0D8B14EAE38C0802577C000465F45&freeText=Blank&tx=0.1092494  man down
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Danczuk is creepy as gently caress, even if what he did wasn't technically illegal. it may or may not surprise you sugar daddy/sugar baby dating sites are experiencing rapid growth, with many hot starving students providing services sexual or otherwise to some rich old dude in exchange for a free ride through uni
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
basically the argument is that in a hypothetical situation where the relationship will be no more abusive than a normal relationship we shouldn't need to bother to ban it as far as i understand it also Pissflaps posted:No you didn't. I don't want to gently caress my sisters. pissflaps herein admits he is literally donald trump and wants to gently caress his daughter instead
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:My daughter is 16 months old you're loving revolting. i have no idea whether you actually have a daughter i'm merely taking mail headlines about corbynejad and inserting pissflaps into them pissflaps is a threat to national security by the way
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:I know what you were trying to point at but that wasn't really what I was trying to point out. i, for one, welcome our cyberpunk future where all humans are sterilised after giving a sperm/egg donation
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The first one that springs to mind is "what age should women in general be forced not to procreate due to risk of Down syndrome?" obviously below the UK average considering the inhabitants of this here island nation
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Incest is bad are you from wales? if yes you're one to talk, sheeposexual e: cornwall, too
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Gonzo gets it. says the son to the dad: you gently caress my mom so i'll gently caress your mom
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:That has even worse results than autosomal recessive conditions. charles II of spain did nothing wrong in fact, his whole family were mere amateurs
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Noxville posted:incest shame. that's my fetish Guavanaut posted:True pros: the name diversity and genetic diversity correlate well i see
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
ban sex makes it really easy to prosecute sex crimes doesn't it
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:And most other crimes would decrease massively within a few decades. a very curageous proposal, prime minister 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Well with cannibalism I'd probably happily allow people to eat me, assuming I died in such a way that it wasn't for the sole purpose of eating me. sexylosers_web_comic.png
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Angepain posted:what did we say that sounded like "please describe your choices of masturbation material" I masturbate to pictures of large and erect nuclear warhead delivery systems.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:We already knew Danczuk's brain worked like this. Baron Corbyn posted:Jesus, I knew he was on the right wing of the right wing of the Labour Party but I'm pretty sure that even right wing Tories don't consider the bloody Lib Dems to be on the far left. Cameron is a centre-left politician.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
Jippa posted:They usually use a tractor or a digger and just steal the whole thing knocking the wall down. yeah but just because they're particularly stupid doesn't mean they need to be punished more
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
TACD posted:
which mathematically illiterate goonlord got mad enough to give you your avatar?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
lol the torygraph misspelled daesh as darsh
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
XMNN posted:behold what happens when you gaze too long into the abyss of realpolitik The shadow human rights minister, Andy Slaughter, 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Fans posted:He may yet give Rasputin a run for his money. All the aka the story of every old democracy ever the people shall have the power to select their leader from the upper class
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 08:55
|
|
"Corbyn cannot be stopped"
|
OvineYeast posted:Of course, this has been a principle of western foreign policy (and related news coverage) for some time now. See e.g. the reaction to the Hamas victory in Palestine a few years back, or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. considering everything in rural oxfordshire is consistently covered in blue come election season i salute our chairman corbyn ze dong's great victory
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:Unfortunately they already jumped in with the 'threat to national security' spiel: Well the idea is that when suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Yeah, sorry, this seems pretty dumb to me. So we keep the submarines, which are very expensive in themselves to maintain, operate and crew, but they're literally incapable of doing more than a couple of Tornadoes? It's not like you can go down to the pound shop and buy new warheads, getting new ones has a lead time which is likely to be longer than the sort of international crisis where we suddenly REALLY REALLY WANT an actual credible deterrent. Not to mention it would actually incentivise anyone who was thinking of nuking us to do so before we bring the subs back into dock (lovely, vulnerable dock) and load the warheads onto them. The other idea (trident-less subs) is to have breakout capability like Japan, which lets you say you're a totally peaceful nation that will never ever destroy the planet over geopolitics or something while relying on conveniently-closeby US nuclear forces, but with an option to join the nuclear club quickly and efficiently once you start feeling sufficiently unsafe to abandon your
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:The only people that will ever use a nuke are the ones that wouldn't be affected by a retaliatory strike. No nation will ever fire a nuclear weapon. Ever. When a non-nuclear nation gets nukes it basically becomes impossible for anyone else to start more than a tiny border skirmish on its own turf because you don't want to be the guy who marches on London and thereby scares Dear Leader Cameron enough to push the button. Hence any nation that wants to get into a pissing contest with a powerful competitor has a good incentive to build a nuke before starting that pissing contest.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Dedicated cruise/ballistic missile platforms the size of Vanguards are a lot scarier than Tornados. If we advertise that they're no longer nuclear (so people shouldn't wig out when we launch ballistic salvos), we've got surprisingly accurate city-levelling firepower that we can deploy from incredible ranges without any risk to our personnel. There's a reason that the Russians are using a lot of naval-launched missiles in their strikes on Syria, and our weapons are much more reliable, so we shouldn't have to worry so much about them malfunctioning and landing in Iran. This move may get rid of our deterrent, but it'll give us a lot more practical, day-to-day utility for our subs. Basically turning the Vanguards into Seawolf 2.0s that will end up dumping a truckload of missiles on tents in a middle eastern desert. "City-levelling" is a bit optimistic imo, a couple dozen large conventional warheads will certainly do some damage but cannot nearly flatten enough area to take out more than a few specific targets in a major city like Greater London or Moscow.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Plus if we get palsy enough with China they might sell us some of those super accurate carrier killer conventional ballistic missiles they've been working on. The only way that would work is if the UK agrees to let China use the QE and PoW as target practice first
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
I think it would be sensible to move to an integrated deterrent with the French, but right now sharing nukes with European Surrender Frogs is probably not politically feasible. As for adding firepower, it would probably be more sensible and less expensive to cover some surface ships in cruise missile launch cells rather than doing it to a submarine unless you already have a surplus submarine, because any nation that could be deterred by a patrolling conventional sub wouldn't have a military capable of taking out the UK in the first place. e: darkwasthenight posted:Are we talking about the ships or Brenda herself here, because I'm not exactly opposed... Why not put QE on the HMS QE and the PoW on the HMS PoW? suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:The whole idea, though, is to figure out what we should do with all those Vanguards we currently have floating around. It's not about bolstering our firepower, it's about making good use of what we already have after a policy change, and while a missile-boat can't beat a surface ship for sub-orbital doom-volleys, it's pretty good at them. Just let the things cart around nukes till 2025 then retire them without replacement. big scary monsters posted:What is it that makes the UK require nuclear weapons when few other countries in Europe do? Are they just relying on British and French nukes to keep them safe? I'm sure that Finland or Germany could build up a nuclear arsenal if there were the will to do so, but I don't think they've ever shown any signs of wanting to. I choose those two because they both have nuclear power, and seem like they'd be under considerably more threat than the UK from hypothetical Russian aggression, but really the same applies to most countries in Northern Europe. The Scandinavian countries tried to never piss off Russia enough to get invaded and don't really place a high priority on bombing tents in deserts or running a latter-day colonial empire. Germany may or may not have maintained breakout capability through the cold war but could (and continues to, though everyone pretends we don't) rely on US nukes whenever it mattered. Germany also really really hates nuclear anything and is still navel-gazing over that weird time when unknown things that may or may not have involved our country happened before we suddenly woke up in 1945 to see everything in ruins. This has reached the point where cutting the military has been a way to score cheap points for politicians and we're afraid to have big warships resulting our new DDs being designated Frigates. e: the main country which is weird for not having nukes is Poland, but they're already rearming conventionally to forestall any little green men and/or russian tank hordes taking over the place. I think Poland could already beat up Germany. Dead Goon posted:I figured it out in the end but I was initially unsure as to why we had HMS Prisoner of War and/or HMS Proof of Work. 
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The Soviets did a lot of things that other countries probably wouldn't. I think generally most later model ICBMs would be pretty accurate, especially when armed with MIRV heads which aren't designed to level entire cities, but destroy multiple smaller portions of them. Or destroy multiple cities that are roughly in line with each other. e: apparently Trident is the most accurate that we know of in having a CEP of 90m with most others being 200m-500m-ish, which means sticking some big loving conventional warhead with a 150m or 300m blast radius on them would just about make them useful to flatten a factory or a tent. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Does anybody know what the fiscal multiplier of spending on the Vanguards/Trident is? I keep hearing the absolute cost, but absolute cost is a bad metric for government spending. Not sure, but I'll bet you it's less than you'd like to make it economically worthwhile but more than you'd want to easily justify axing it on economic grounds 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Well, I chose Finland because they share a border with and have previously been invaded by Russia. The UK on the other hand never has been. Obviously Germany have been invaded by Russia too but the circumstances were slightly different and I know their military attitude is as a result somewhat unique in Europe. But I guess the answer is basically this: Filand shares a border with and has previously been invaded by Russia, so they may have thought that appeasement politics and then leaning on America would give them a better chance than starting a lengthy nuclear weapons programme and hoping the Soviets wouldn't shut them down before they're done.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:Entertainingly, despite this both countries have dismantled their civilian nuclear power schemes because they're politically unpalatable. Danger has nothing to do with this, except danger of not being reelected.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:If Donald Trump ordered a nuclear strike on Mexico, would we have to join in? Only if Mexico shot first
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:France is in NATO still isn't it? And unlike the UK they still make their own nukes and nuke delivery systems.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 18:46
|
|