|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jun 29, 2016 15:16:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 29, 2016 15:33:50 GMT
"muppet" is what the boys called the vet, not what the article called the boys "“Listen you little Muppet! Don’t talk s--t to me!” one of the teens screamed. “Get off the tram now! Get off the tram now!”" yes, and then I asked if "muppet" is normally what children are called in the UK, and suggested that the article should have referred to all three of the offenders as children. from the BBC: 8. Muppet When a British Goldman Sacs employee resigned last year in an open letter and said that some colleagues in London had called their clients “muppets”, Americans at the firm were left wondering what he meant. Brits have borrowed Jim Henson’s name for furry, be-stringed critters and tweaked it to mean someone who’s stupid, gullible and incapable of independent thought. Let’s not mention this to Miss Piggy.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 30, 2016 5:50:38 GMT
"muppet" is what the boys called the vet, not what the article called the boys "“Listen you little Muppet! Don’t talk s--t to me!” one of the teens screamed. “Get off the tram now! Get off the tram now!”" Muppet is to refer to someone acting childishly. It was used wrongly in this case. You can call an adult a Muppet if the are acting childishly, being a bit thick, or more accurately repeating a dogma that you know they "learned" from elsewhere.... In that al those stupid far-right racist feather-brained ding-bats of the EDL are all complete "Muppet's" in that they allowed themselves to be stirred up by [backside]holes and almost remote-controlled into causing riots. So Muppet is a defrogotory term to someone who you believe erroneously believes in the opposing side of the argument to you. This happened in Manchester.... By some lager swilling "yoofs" .... The fact they were swilling from cans of lager "At that time of the morning" says enough. We have lowlife scum even here in Manchester. And at this point, I am glad we dont have firearms in this country, because that kind of action is decried upon, and would have been met with a hail of automatic fire, if we had.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 30, 2016 5:58:05 GMT
Rump state?.. more like prime steak minus the rump, that we could tow out into the Thames estuary and cast adrift, to sit amongst its own faeces, slightly steaming. The old Roman town of lon doneium certainly would be. And much better would the IK be without that pile of dogma dog mess, dog eared old ex europen red tape rule books and the other eurpoen "fan-boys" that are DETERMINED to drag this country down because "they got the wrong result" What we need now is to cast adrift from the lies and start working together.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jun 30, 2016 11:42:30 GMT
Boris Johnson former Mayor of London and sometimes BBC comedy host, has ruled himself out f the race to become the next Conservative leader and PM. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36672591Some suggest his joining the leave campaign was just a strategy to align himself with the more right wing parts of the Party, knowing that David Cameron had already announced he would stand down before the next election, but that he never expected that leave would actually win. Boris is unprepared to have the sort of serious negotiations that are needed to be had over Brexit, and so does not want to become next PM.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jun 30, 2016 14:53:33 GMT
Because we can't let the UK get all the attention, it's time for the "Texit"! Yes, some individuals/groups within Texas are considering seceding from the US and becoming sovereign. Not quite sure how they plan on making that work. They do realize that the US and EU are not similar entities, right?? 'Texit'? British Vote Revives a Texas Secession Dream, and Spawn a HashtagSo, Texas, the land of oil, cattle, & firearms, wants to be its own nation. Will nope move his border wall to the northern border of Texas instead of Mexico? But, wait! There's more... What does Mr nope think of all this?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 30, 2016 15:01:53 GMT
Because we can't let the UK get all the attention, it's time for the "Texit"! Yes, some individuals/groups within Texas are considering seceding from the US and becoming sovereign. Not quite sure how they plan on making that work. They do realize that the US and EU are not similar entities, right?? 'Texit'? British Vote Revives a Texas Secession Dream, and Spawn a HashtagSo, Texas, the land of oil, cattle, & firearms, wants to be its own nation. Will nope move his border wall to the northern border of Texas instead of Mexico? But, wait! There's more... What does Mr nope think of all this? I have to admit to being an instigator in that. mind you that mostly consisted of pointing out that last secession movement had more support from outside texas than inside.
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 1, 2016 8:16:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Jul 1, 2016 13:31:17 GMT
Having read the story, it seems quite simply that cannon wants to avoid getting taxed for videocamera instead of still camera, the EU just set a quite reasonable lenght of recording time (30 minutes) what limits a still camera instead of video camera. Hardly much Eurocracy, more just a basic taxing rule difference between 2 kinds of products. The same rules count for diesel or gasoline cars, or different sizes of engine etc etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 1, 2016 13:35:05 GMT
To all the gloom and doomers, one week after brixet, the US stock market is back to where it was before the vote.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 1, 2016 13:38:38 GMT
Having read the story, it seems quite simply that cannon wants to avoid getting taxed for videocamera instead of still camera, the EU just set a quite reasonable lenght of recording time (30 minutes) what limits a still camera instead of video camera. Hardly much Eurocracy, more just a basic taxing rule difference between 2 kinds of products. The same rules count for diesel or gasoline cars, or different sizes of engine etc etc etc. The problem isn't how long a camera can record before it's taxed as a video camera, it's who makes the decision on how long the camera can record. Whether it's a stupid rule or one that makes sense, the Brits don't want Brussels making that call.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 1, 2016 13:40:34 GMT
On another note, Johnson has stepped down in the race for PM.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 1, 2016 13:51:35 GMT
Having read the story, it seems quite simply that cannon wants to avoid getting taxed for videocamera instead of still camera, the EU just set a quite reasonable lenght of recording time (30 minutes) what limits a still camera instead of video camera. Hardly much Eurocracy, more just a basic taxing rule difference between 2 kinds of products. The same rules count for diesel or gasoline cars, or different sizes of engine etc etc etc. The problem isn't how long a camera can record before it's taxed as a video camera, it's who makes the decision on how long the camera can record. Whether it's a stupid rule or one that makes sense, the Brits don't want Brussels making that call. I'm old, I still think the length of time a still camera can record is one frame.
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 1, 2016 14:20:57 GMT
Having read the story, it seems quite simply that cannon wants to avoid getting taxed for videocamera instead of still camera, the EU just set a quite reasonable lenght of recording time (30 minutes) what limits a still camera instead of video camera. Hardly much Eurocracy, more just a basic taxing rule difference between 2 kinds of products. The same rules count for diesel or gasoline cars, or different sizes of engine etc etc etc. The problem isn't how long a camera can record before it's taxed as a video camera, it's who makes the decision on how long the camera can record. Whether it's a stupid rule or one that makes sense, the Brits don't want Brussels making that call. The fact that some bozo bureaucrat thinks it's better to arbitrarily cripple a design so it's performance fits into an obsolete set of categories for tax purposes makes my head hurt. Supposed the bureaucrat had said "Oooh, a smart phone, you say? Well, let's tax it as a phone, a camera, a calculator, a game system...for every app we must have a separate tax! That's the way to do it!" In short, why in the name of all that's holy does anyone think a still camera and a movie camera need separate tax rates? Especially if they're the same hardware? Is there some strange impact that a movie camera has on the public that a still one doesn't? Or is it a matter of protectionism (which is the only other option I see) and therefore almost always immoral?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 1, 2016 14:30:26 GMT
The problem isn't how long a camera can record before it's taxed as a video camera, it's who makes the decision on how long the camera can record. Whether it's a stupid rule or one that makes sense, the Brits don't want Brussels making that call. The fact that some bozo bureaucrat thinks it's better to arbitrarily cripple a design so it's performance fits into an obsolete set of categories for tax purposes makes my head hurt. Supposed the bureaucrat had said "Oooh, a smart phone, you say? Well, let's tax it as a phone, a camera, a calculator, a game system...for every app we must have a separate tax! That's the way to do it!" In short, why in the name of all that's holy does anyone think a still camera and a movie camera need separate tax rates? Especially if they're the same hardware? Is there some strange impact that a movie camera has on the public that a still one doesn't? Or is it a matter of protectionism (which is the only other option I see) and therefore almost always immoral? I suspect it is an artifact from when still cameras were cheap and everybody had one, while movie cameras were more expensive. so modern video capable cameras make a point of still fitting into the still camera category, just as there are cars made specifically to fit in the motorcycle category to avoid taxes. I would agree that separate nitpicky taxes are grounds for revolution, but to claim oppression because you can only record 29.9 minutes of video without having to be categorized as a video camera seems a bit special-snowflake to me.
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 1, 2016 15:38:55 GMT
I put it in the same category as the city officials who want kids selling lemonade to meet all the standards a regular restaurant must meet or face fines or other punishments.
Bureaucracy run amok.
Again, I can't figure out the justification for taxing still cameras differently from movie cameras, such that 30 minutes makes an obvious, required distinction.
It simply doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 1, 2016 15:44:05 GMT
It's the only way bureaucracy knows to run.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 2, 2016 6:13:15 GMT
Having read the story, it seems quite simply that cannon wants to avoid getting taxed for videocamera instead of still camera, the EU just set a quite reasonable lenght of recording time (30 minutes) what limits a still camera instead of video camera. Hardly much Eurocracy, more just a basic taxing rule difference between 2 kinds of products. The same rules count for diesel or gasoline cars, or different sizes of engine etc etc etc. Problem is, technology has evolved, and anything capable of photographic abilities is now "All the same duck". Video camera's and still camera's use exactly the same lens technology, exactly the same sensor technology, the difference is in the name. So why should you have to pay more "taxation" just because you can be called a video camera?. Because thats how europe gets its fund, raising taxes on stuff they really shouldnt be doing. And THIS is why many of us wanted to leave.
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 2, 2016 7:25:33 GMT
Read an interesting question in an article that I can't find now:
Why are the Brits the only indigenous people that are not allowed to control their own territory?
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 2, 2016 21:03:27 GMT
Having read the story, it seems quite simply that cannon wants to avoid getting taxed for videocamera instead of still camera, the EU just set a quite reasonable lenght of recording time (30 minutes) what limits a still camera instead of video camera. Hardly much Eurocracy, more just a basic taxing rule difference between 2 kinds of products. The same rules count for diesel or gasoline cars, or different sizes of engine etc etc etc. The difference being that a diesel pollutes more than a gasoline car (or at least used to) and the bigger your engine is, the more fuel it uses (pollution again), the more it weighs (wear and tear on roads) and so on. It makes sense to encourage people to choose lighter cars that pollute less by taxing the major offenders more rigorously. In comparison, what damage does a still camera that's able to record video do that a dedicated video camera doesn't? What is that tax meant to prevent or encourage that will make the lives of ordinary EU citizens better, now or in the future? And why the 30 minute recording limit? Why set it there? Why not 60 minutes? Why not 10? Why even set the limit on recording time? Why not on video quality? Why not on sound quality? Why not on whether or not the camera can be mounted on something that stabilizes it? Is there any logical, reasonable, sensical argument to be made for a limit of any kind being set at all? Simply going, "Well, we have rules for other products too," isn't a valid argument for allowing legislative overreach and this is just one example of it among many. The dumbest one yet is the idea that clean water - regular H 2O - cannot legally be marketed as an effective product for the prevention of dehydration. PHWHAT?!The very definition of the word "dehydration" is "lacking water" for crying out loud!!! How can you sit there with a straight face and tell me water can't be marketed as an effective product for combatting lack of WATER?! What's next? Refrigerators can no longer be marketed as good at keeping things cold? You can't advertise that lamps are able to light up rooms? Roofs can't be touted as good shelter against rain? Going outside can no longer be claimed as an effective means of gaining access to fresh air? Enough is enough! When it comes to whether or not it was a good idea for the Brits to leave the EU, I'm with you. I don't think it was. I believe it would have been much better for the UK to team up with us and try to persuade some of the other countries that this legislative overreach has to stop and work the system from within. That said, I can't in good conscience say I don't understand why they voted to leave. They've had enough, just as many other Europeans have. What they failed to recognize though - as many here who are talking about us having a similar vote are failing to understand as well - is that "the people in Brussels" are our own politicians. If we want change in the EU, it starts with the people we vote for here at home. They're the ones going down there and signing the deals we become part of and they're the ones not protesting when something is seriously wrong. They're supposed to represent us, but as soon as they get down there they get caught up in "the greater good of the Union" and lose track of why they were sent there in the first place. We as citizens of the EU need to get ourselves more involved, instead of just seeing the Union as some sort of outside force that we have no control over. We need to understand how it works and then we need to demand that our politicians let us vote on who we send to Brussels to represent us, just as the Americans have elections on who gets to represent each state in their Senate. The EU has too much legislative power for us to just trust our elected governments to send the right people. We have to demand that our voices are heard in the EU. Quitting won't accomplish that.
|
|