Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

New or old, its terrifying prospect. 

[STEMO]

New or old, its terrifying prospect. 

Why? What difference would it make to you? Eh? Eh? 

[STEMO]

That awful left wing bbc telling porkies again:

Trump impeachment: Several Republicans to join Democrats in House vote https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55642101

[Doctor Gollum]

If the definition of several has changed

Fact, only 1 Republican voted for it.

But don't let that ruin an opportunity to misinform. 

223 For.
205 Against.
222 Dems + 1 Rep for.
205 Rep against.
5 Rep didn't vote.

Sure you could accurately state that 6 didn't vote against it, which could be construed as 'several', but it is not the same as 6 voting in favour. That number was categorically a single person.

[B52]

Has voting actually taken place yet?

[Entwood]

Has voting actually taken place yet?

Nope .. not due until later today ... so where DG gets his fictitious figures from is anyones guess .......

the House does not re-convene until 14.00 GMT (its now 12:28), then the debates, then the first vote is expected at  17:00 GMT, followed by two hours of further debate and votes ....

[Doctor Gollum]

That was the result of yesterday's amendments. Was about 11pm ET.

So, as an observation, if my numbers are ficticious, God alone knows where the BBC get theirs from

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

New or old, its terrifying prospect. 

Why? What difference would it make to you? Eh? Eh? 

Its pure Socialism.If it were introduced in the U.S. it would be a very big signal that they have won, and Capitalism is on life support.
It has also been suggested in this country by the usual suspects, and if the yanks do it, we probably wouldnt be far behind.
Terrifying.

[STEMO]

That was the result of yesterday's amendments. Was about 11pm ET.

So, as an observation, if my numbers are ficticious, God alone knows where the BBC get theirs from

I can't actually see any figures in that bbc report, can you?

[STEMO]

New or old, its terrifying prospect. 

Why? What difference would it make to you? Eh? Eh? 

Its pure Socialism.If it were introduced in the U.S. it would be a very big signal that they have won, and Capitalism is on life support.
It has also been suggested in this country by the usual suspects, and if the yanks do it, we probably wouldnt be far behind.
Terrifying.

Hmmmm......I think zombies are worse.

[STEMO]

That was the result of yesterday's amendments. Was about 11pm ET.

So, as an observation, if my numbers are ficticious, God alone knows where the BBC get theirs from

I can't actually see any figures in that bbc report, can you?

Well, come on. Am I missing something or are you seeing things? 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

If the definition of several has changed

Fact, only 1 Republican voted for it.

But don't let that ruin an opportunity to misinform. 

223 For.
205 Against.
222 Dems + 1 Rep for.
205 Rep against.
5 Rep didn't vote.

Sure you could accurately state that 6 didn't vote against it, which could be construed as 'several', but it is not the same as 6 voting in favour. That number was categorically a single person.

BBC Barnsley.

[STEMO]

If the definition of several has changed

Fact, only 1 Republican voted for it.

But don't let that ruin an opportunity to misinform. 

223 For.
205 Against.
222 Dems + 1 Rep for.
205 Rep against.
5 Rep didn't vote.

Sure you could accurately state that 6 didn't vote against it, which could be construed as 'several', but it is not the same as 6 voting in favour. That number was categorically a single person.

BBC Barnsley.

Oh god, it's the man from the 1970's. What are you on about, Enoch?

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

If the definition of several has changed

Fact, only 1 Republican voted for it.

But don't let that ruin an opportunity to misinform. 

223 For.
205 Against.
222 Dems + 1 Rep for.
205 Rep against.
5 Rep didn't vote.

Sure you could accurately state that 6 didn't vote against it, which could be construed as 'several', but it is not the same as 6 voting in favour. That number was categorically a single person.

BBC Barnsley.

Oh god, it's the man from the 1970's. What are you on about, Enoch?

Nobody from this forum knows what they are on about. OOF is a collection of misfits, oddballs, and grumpy old men from Barnsleywakefield.

[STEMO]

If the definition of several has changed

Fact, only 1 Republican voted for it.

But don't let that ruin an opportunity to misinform. 

223 For.
205 Against.
222 Dems + 1 Rep for.
205 Rep against.
5 Rep didn't vote.

Sure you could accurately state that 6 didn't vote against it, which could be construed as 'several', but it is not the same as 6 voting in favour. That number was categorically a single person.

BBC Barnsley.

Oh god, it's the man from the 1970's. What are you on about, Enoch?

Nobody from this forum knows what they are on about. OOF is a collection of misfits, oddballs, and grumpy old men from Barnsleywakefield.

Yes, yes. Go and sit in your comfy chair in the corner for a while, there's a good chap. If wifey brings you a nice cup of tea, don't forget to put you bib on.