Not sure if them creators had expected Hillary to win, but safe to say everyone was surprised.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,860
Quote: DaButt @ 17th November 2016, 3:26 PMIt's come to the point where even the most slightly politically charged discussion must result in accusations of racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, and/or fascism. You must also include at least one of the following terms: white privilege, dog whistling, Hitler, straw man, trigger, safe space.
Particularly disturbing are the PC hoards on Facebook and Twitter baying for blood, "..sack 'em!, sack 'em!" whenever someone makes a PC misdemeanour. Remarkably like the "string 'em up" attitude they supposedly abhor in others.
Apparently, it's OK when it's the "right" targets...
The worst ones are the ones that are offended on someones else's behalf.
I have a black friend on facebook who uses a golliwog as his avitar.
Sometimes when he posts on other sites he is abused for it.
Quote: zooo @ 17th November 2016, 8:36 PMAh, so you get paid more and your houses cost less.
YOU JAMMY FUC*&@#***.
Ahem.
AND lower taxes.
Set to get lower I should imagine.
Buckingham Palace is to undergo a 10-year refurbishment costing the taxpayer £369m, the Treasury has announced.
The Queen will remain in residence during the work, to begin next April.
And here's the reason:
Based on the uncertainty surrounding Brexit I understand that Theresa May has suggested that the Royal Family should be encouraged along the DIY route instead. The Queen is up for it which is why she's staying (to rally and supervise the grandkids) and she also likes it because she is quite frugal minded. I further understand that she has already insisted that her personal 'guzunda' should be refurbished rather than replaced as it has provided good service and is only slightly stained (as one might imagine) and due in part no doubt to the high quality of royal excretions.
Donald Trump has nominated his close conservative ally Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general.
This guy is getting some rave reviews following his appointment..
One of the put downs I read was (incredulous though it may seem) he is "..a supporter of legal immigration.."
... supporting the law then is no longer a virtue ... ??!! 
I mean, the law may be wrong (who can say anymore), but you shouldn't be put down for supporting it, surely.
Quote: Frankie Rage @ 18th November 2016, 4:53 PM... supporting the law then is no longer a virtue ... ??!!
I mean, the law may be wrong (who can say anymore), but you shouldn't be put down for supporting it, surely.
The ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) is updating their Form 4473, which is the document that is filled out prior to undergoing an FBI background check for the purchase of a new firearm. The old version asked if the applicant was an illegal user of marijuana and other drugs, so it was unclear what "illegal" meant when considering states where recreational and/or medical marijuana were legal. The new form makes it clear that marijuana is illegal under federal law, so any user of marijuana is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Lying is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison.
It'll be fun watching the anti-gun crowd who have demanded more background checks twist themselves into pretzels by claiming that background checks are unfair and run contrary to the law.
Quote: DaButt @ 18th November 2016, 5:14 PMThe old version asked if the applicant was an illegal user of marijuana and other drugs,
Please tell me the background check is more than just a series of questions.
There is some actual checking.
Because on entering the States, I always used to tick that one that said I hadn't come to blow the place up.
Which of course I hadn't.
But if I had come to blow the place up, I'm pretty sure I'd have still ticked the box.
Quote: Lazzard @ 18th November 2016, 5:29 PMPlease tell me the background check is more than just a series of questions.
There is some actual checking.
The applicant's name, Social Security number and date of birth are compared to an electronic FBI database of people who are not permitted to buy firearms. Those not permitted include someone who:
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
Yeah, an awful lot of weight is put behind a person's signature. The system weeds out a lot of people, but mostly people who actually didn't realize that they were prohibited. Few criminals would even bother, since they know their history would preclude them. Besides, it's much cheaper to buy a gun on the street than in a store.
The same people who say that the background checks for gun purchases aren't strict enough are the ones who fight against any sort of voter ID law. It's the same thing: swear that you're a citizen and they'll let you vote and you're unlikely to be caught. The Turkish guy who shot and killed 5 people at a Washington mall recently was not legally allowed to vote, but that didn't stop him from voting in 3 elections.
Quote: DaButt @ 18th November 2016, 5:14 PMupdating their Form 4473.......any user of marijuana is prohibited from purchasing a firearm.
Unless the gun's made of chocolate, where's their motivation for buying one ? The worry thing about form 4473 is that there are at least another 4472 forms.
Quote: Lazzard @ 18th November 2016, 5:29 PMBut if I had come to blow the place up, I'm pretty sure I'd have still ticked the box.
I would have thought immigration would be worried about a ticking box.
Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 18th November 2016, 5:57 PMUnless the gun's made of chocolate, where's their motivation for buying one ?
A little bang to go with their bong?
Quote: DaButt @ 18th November 2016, 5:43 PMThe same people who say that the background checks for gun purchases aren't strict enough are the ones who fight against any sort of voter ID law.
Voter ID law sounds pretty important, can't understand how anyone can justify being against a robust voter ID law.
Quote: DaButt @ 18th November 2016, 6:10 PMA little bang to go with their bong?
A little bang to go with everything isn't it. It amazed me that the gentleman who was shot by a policeman (justifiably or not is not my point) went to the supermarket with wife and child ..oh, and his gun. The idea that someone would feel the need to be 'tooled up' for a visit to the supermarket with wife and baby for the weekly shop just astounds me. It seems so wrong. 
It sounds like the Wild West out there!!
I read a heartbreaking story today about a 14 year old British girl who was terminally ill with cancer and won a court battle to be cryogenically frozen. Her mother had given consent but her father, who she had not seen for many years, objected because he feared for her future if she was revivived in hundreds of years and would be a 14 year old girl with no family and in a strange country. She has been moved to a facility in America since she passed away in October this year and I can understand his concerns but he eventually agreed it should go ahead as it was her dying wish.
It's a very complex subject which is open to questions of ethics and experimentation but it could be an important step in humankind. We will all be long gone before we find out but what I don't understand is why they wait for the person to pass away before they are frozen because this means that not only does their terminal illness need to be cured but they also have to learn how to revive a dead person to their former self and I don't think that can ever be possible. Not with promising long term results. The obvious issue being brain damage and other neurological conditions that would effectively lead to a permanent vegetative state.
Exactly what I was thinking while watching the news. How to bring somebody back from the dead?
The long delay while they argued before she was frozen, almost certainly makes any chance of revival impossible anyway.
There are several science-fiction stories/novels in which cyrogenic corpses get used as spare parts for living people in the future rather than being revived.