comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 minutes ago
No-one will ever convince (feel free to try) that this right wing, culture war, anti-trans ideology is anything other than pearl clutchers not liking the idea of c**ks in frocks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it’s that.
They dress it up as them being worried about the kids… these are the same people that voted for kids to live below the poverty line, they don’t give a shiiiiiit.
Regardless, it doesn’t affect them in any way, shape or form.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the casual, consistent equating of trans with s3x pests that is disgusting, as if they're not marginalised enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha doing exactly what I predicted. Thank you for being the NPC that you are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's an NPC? Why are youns ared of trans people.
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 56 minutes ago
Always thought the concept of deterrent is utter balls tbh.
Two decent sized nukes means a nuclear winter and the people who launched them would die anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely
Which means nobody would risk that if the two sides each had the same capability.
Hence it’s not balls.
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 30 minutes ago
Always thought the concept of deterrent is utter balls tbh.
Two decent sized nukes means a nuclear winter and the people who launched them would die anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would help reform the ice caps though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every cloud has a plutonium lining
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 56 minutes ago
Always thought the concept of deterrent is utter balls tbh.
Two decent sized nukes means a nuclear winter and the people who launched them would die anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely
Which means nobody would risk that if the two sides each had the same capability.
Hence it’s not balls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if only one side has them, and fires them, then they die anyway. We wouldn’t even need nukes, the weather would do it.
I'm vindictive and petty enough that if we were fired upon I'm 100% hitting the fire back button even knowing it won't do anything to help or change the situation
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 56 minutes ago
Always thought the concept of deterrent is utter balls tbh.
Two decent sized nukes means a nuclear winter and the people who launched them would die anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely
Which means nobody would risk that if the two sides each had the same capability.
Hence it’s not balls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is absolute balls. Russia nuking Ukraine would be cutting their nose to spite their face. The countries are next to each other so fallout would hit Russia harder than anyone else, and most people have family and/or friends across the border anyway.
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 56 minutes ago
Always thought the concept of deterrent is utter balls tbh.
Two decent sized nukes means a nuclear winter and the people who launched them would die anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely
Which means nobody would risk that if the two sides each had the same capability.
Hence it’s not balls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if only one side has them, and fires them, then they die anyway. We wouldn’t even need nukes, the weather would do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure Russia doesn't want to drop a nuke 500km from Moscow.
They could drop them on Iceland, the world would still go into a nuclear winter and everyone would die, so where is the deterrent?
I honestly don’t get it tbh, and think it’s a complete waste of money.
Take Trident, super secret submarines. Just lie and say you have them if you’re that bothered.
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 38 seconds ago
They could drop them on Iceland, the world would still go into a nuclear winter and everyone would die, so where is the deterrent?
I honestly don’t get it tbh, and think it’s a complete waste of money.
Take Trident, super secret submarines. Just lie and say you have them if you’re that bothered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could spend a fortune on Trident and it's completely useless unless you make an official announcement to tell people that you have it.
comment by Critical Supe Theory (U1282)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 56 minutes ago
Always thought the concept of deterrent is utter balls tbh.
Two decent sized nukes means a nuclear winter and the people who launched them would die anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely
Which means nobody would risk that if the two sides each had the same capability.
Hence it’s not balls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if only one side has them, and fires them, then they die anyway. We wouldn’t even need nukes, the weather would do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure Russia doesn't want to drop a nuke 500km from Moscow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't have to be nukes. Russia has shown before it can fvck with us in many ways with impunity thanks to the last lot.
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 42 minutes ago
They could drop them on Iceland, the world would still go into a nuclear winter and everyone would die, so where is the deterrent?
I honestly don’t get it tbh, and think it’s a complete waste of money.
Take Trident, super secret submarines. Just lie and say you have them if you’re that bothered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just lie?
Seriously though; who has been invaded across a border by massed armed troops, air strikes and artillery that possesses a nuclear threat?
Nobody. It’s a deterrent.
Iran is desperate to possess it (if it doesn’t already) for the very purpose of being even more of a menacing threat.
It’s like taking on some massive bloke in a square go who just happens to have a couple of claw hammers to hand. Not the best idea you could come up with.
be gutted when we lose our nuclear weapons and denmark launches a naval invasion
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 1 minute ago
be gutted when we lose our nuclear weapons and denmark launches a naval invasion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let’s see them try and take Lindisfarne this time.
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 19 minutes ago
be gutted when we lose our nuclear weapons and denmark launches a naval invasion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes. Denmark. Top of the antagonists list they are
Bloody Vikings. What did they ever do for us?
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 19 minutes ago
be gutted when we lose our nuclear weapons and denmark launches a naval invasion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes. Denmark. Top of the antagonists list they are
Bloody Vikings. What did they ever do for us?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Taught us to shoplift and wolf whistle at the womenfolk.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 19 minutes ago
be gutted when we lose our nuclear weapons and denmark launches a naval invasion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes. Denmark. Top of the antagonists list they are
Bloody Vikings. What did they ever do for us?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Taught us to shoplift and wolf whistle at the womenfolk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but apart from that
<shadesofLifeofBrian>
Chances are if a nuclear war happens, it won’t be the UK launching one or having one launched at them first. With that in mind, in the event one does happen, we could do with keeping ours just so we can launch one at France first.
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Chances are if a nuclear war happens, it won’t be the UK launching one or having one launched at them first. With that in mind, in the event one does happen, we could do with keeping ours just so we can launch one at France first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should do that regardless
Forget the Russians it's no deterrant if it doesn't deter the French from surrendering at the first possible opportunity again.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 42 minutes ago
They could drop them on Iceland, the world would still go into a nuclear winter and everyone would die, so where is the deterrent?
I honestly don’t get it tbh, and think it’s a complete waste of money.
Take Trident, super secret submarines. Just lie and say you have them if you’re that bothered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just lie?
Seriously though; who has been invaded across a border by massed armed troops, air strikes and artillery that possesses a nuclear threat?
=====
Shifting the goal posts here. The notion of deterrence relates to other nuclear powers. Any nation with nuclear capability already has a strong enough military to fend off a ground invasion anyway.
Show me one nuclear capable nation that is concerned about a ground invasion. The threat is other nuclear powers and that's why having nuclear weapons is a deterrent because "if you hit is we hit you."
Basically, your point is nonsense and a shift of the goal posts from nuclear deterrence to ground invasion deterrence. We wouldn't need nukes if ground invasions was the only worry.
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 9 hours, 39 minutes ago
Pranks.sad news, small mercies but at least the kid has you and your family around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely fackin horrendous situation.
Poor kid is doing the school drama production today so we decided not to break the news as he’s back late.
I’m picking him tomorrow lunchtime and bringing him home. social services will be there and a school councillor when we give him the news.
Feel so sorry for him, he doesn’t deserve this
Cheers Hector
This ex Labour MP seems to think Labour’s failure to call out genocide is what cost her and other colleagues seats.
https://x.com/channel4news/status/1811069277086097878?s=46&t=bPTrpdgNggCdz9igvhmVyw
I mean first of all does a bear shiiit in the woods
I'm not watching the interview now, it's football time, but does she mention her lack of campaigning locally too?
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 4 minutes ago
I mean first of all does a bear shiiit in the woods
I'm not watching the interview now, it's football time, but does she mention her lack of campaigning locally too?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, just blaming Keith for not being quicker to call for a ceasefire and waiting for 30,000 Palestinians to die before he had a change of heart.
Ashworth crying on LBC tonight over it as well, they can’t fathom the Muslamics punishing the party for not having Palestine’s back from the beginning.
Sign in if you want to comment
Arguing w/strangers cause I'm lonely thread
Page 4383 of 4713
4384 | 4385 | 4386 | 4387 | 4388
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 minutes ago
No-one will ever convince (feel free to try) that this right wing, culture war, anti-trans ideology is anything other than pearl clutchers not liking the idea of c**ks in frocks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it’s that.
They dress it up as them being worried about the kids… these are the same people that voted for kids to live below the poverty line, they don’t give a shiiiiiit.
Regardless, it doesn’t affect them in any way, shape or form.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the casual, consistent equating of trans with s3x pests that is disgusting, as if they're not marginalised enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha doing exactly what I predicted. Thank you for being the NPC that you are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's an NPC? Why are youns ared of trans people.
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 56 minutes ago
Always thought the concept of deterrent is utter balls tbh.
Two decent sized nukes means a nuclear winter and the people who launched them would die anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely
Which means nobody would risk that if the two sides each had the same capability.
Hence it’s not balls.
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 30 minutes ago
Always thought the concept of deterrent is utter balls tbh.
Two decent sized nukes means a nuclear winter and the people who launched them would die anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would help reform the ice caps though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every cloud has a plutonium lining
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 56 minutes ago
Always thought the concept of deterrent is utter balls tbh.
Two decent sized nukes means a nuclear winter and the people who launched them would die anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely
Which means nobody would risk that if the two sides each had the same capability.
Hence it’s not balls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if only one side has them, and fires them, then they die anyway. We wouldn’t even need nukes, the weather would do it.
posted on 10/7/24
I'm vindictive and petty enough that if we were fired upon I'm 100% hitting the fire back button even knowing it won't do anything to help or change the situation
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 56 minutes ago
Always thought the concept of deterrent is utter balls tbh.
Two decent sized nukes means a nuclear winter and the people who launched them would die anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely
Which means nobody would risk that if the two sides each had the same capability.
Hence it’s not balls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is absolute balls. Russia nuking Ukraine would be cutting their nose to spite their face. The countries are next to each other so fallout would hit Russia harder than anyone else, and most people have family and/or friends across the border anyway.
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 56 minutes ago
Always thought the concept of deterrent is utter balls tbh.
Two decent sized nukes means a nuclear winter and the people who launched them would die anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely
Which means nobody would risk that if the two sides each had the same capability.
Hence it’s not balls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if only one side has them, and fires them, then they die anyway. We wouldn’t even need nukes, the weather would do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure Russia doesn't want to drop a nuke 500km from Moscow.
posted on 10/7/24
They could drop them on Iceland, the world would still go into a nuclear winter and everyone would die, so where is the deterrent?
I honestly don’t get it tbh, and think it’s a complete waste of money.
Take Trident, super secret submarines. Just lie and say you have them if you’re that bothered.
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 38 seconds ago
They could drop them on Iceland, the world would still go into a nuclear winter and everyone would die, so where is the deterrent?
I honestly don’t get it tbh, and think it’s a complete waste of money.
Take Trident, super secret submarines. Just lie and say you have them if you’re that bothered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could spend a fortune on Trident and it's completely useless unless you make an official announcement to tell people that you have it.
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Critical Supe Theory (U1282)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 56 minutes ago
Always thought the concept of deterrent is utter balls tbh.
Two decent sized nukes means a nuclear winter and the people who launched them would die anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely
Which means nobody would risk that if the two sides each had the same capability.
Hence it’s not balls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if only one side has them, and fires them, then they die anyway. We wouldn’t even need nukes, the weather would do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure Russia doesn't want to drop a nuke 500km from Moscow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't have to be nukes. Russia has shown before it can fvck with us in many ways with impunity thanks to the last lot.
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 42 minutes ago
They could drop them on Iceland, the world would still go into a nuclear winter and everyone would die, so where is the deterrent?
I honestly don’t get it tbh, and think it’s a complete waste of money.
Take Trident, super secret submarines. Just lie and say you have them if you’re that bothered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just lie?
Seriously though; who has been invaded across a border by massed armed troops, air strikes and artillery that possesses a nuclear threat?
Nobody. It’s a deterrent.
Iran is desperate to possess it (if it doesn’t already) for the very purpose of being even more of a menacing threat.
It’s like taking on some massive bloke in a square go who just happens to have a couple of claw hammers to hand. Not the best idea you could come up with.
posted on 10/7/24
be gutted when we lose our nuclear weapons and denmark launches a naval invasion
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 1 minute ago
be gutted when we lose our nuclear weapons and denmark launches a naval invasion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let’s see them try and take Lindisfarne this time.
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 19 minutes ago
be gutted when we lose our nuclear weapons and denmark launches a naval invasion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes. Denmark. Top of the antagonists list they are
Bloody Vikings. What did they ever do for us?
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 19 minutes ago
be gutted when we lose our nuclear weapons and denmark launches a naval invasion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes. Denmark. Top of the antagonists list they are
Bloody Vikings. What did they ever do for us?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Taught us to shoplift and wolf whistle at the womenfolk.
posted on 10/7/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 19 minutes ago
be gutted when we lose our nuclear weapons and denmark launches a naval invasion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes. Denmark. Top of the antagonists list they are
Bloody Vikings. What did they ever do for us?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Taught us to shoplift and wolf whistle at the womenfolk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but apart from that
<shadesofLifeofBrian>
posted on 10/7/24
Chances are if a nuclear war happens, it won’t be the UK launching one or having one launched at them first. With that in mind, in the event one does happen, we could do with keeping ours just so we can launch one at France first.
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Chances are if a nuclear war happens, it won’t be the UK launching one or having one launched at them first. With that in mind, in the event one does happen, we could do with keeping ours just so we can launch one at France first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should do that regardless
posted on 10/7/24
Forget the Russians it's no deterrant if it doesn't deter the French from surrendering at the first possible opportunity again.
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules... (U6374)
posted 42 minutes ago
They could drop them on Iceland, the world would still go into a nuclear winter and everyone would die, so where is the deterrent?
I honestly don’t get it tbh, and think it’s a complete waste of money.
Take Trident, super secret submarines. Just lie and say you have them if you’re that bothered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just lie?
Seriously though; who has been invaded across a border by massed armed troops, air strikes and artillery that possesses a nuclear threat?
=====
Shifting the goal posts here. The notion of deterrence relates to other nuclear powers. Any nation with nuclear capability already has a strong enough military to fend off a ground invasion anyway.
Show me one nuclear capable nation that is concerned about a ground invasion. The threat is other nuclear powers and that's why having nuclear weapons is a deterrent because "if you hit is we hit you."
Basically, your point is nonsense and a shift of the goal posts from nuclear deterrence to ground invasion deterrence. We wouldn't need nukes if ground invasions was the only worry.
posted on 10/7/24
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 9 hours, 39 minutes ago
Pranks.sad news, small mercies but at least the kid has you and your family around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely fackin horrendous situation.
Poor kid is doing the school drama production today so we decided not to break the news as he’s back late.
I’m picking him tomorrow lunchtime and bringing him home. social services will be there and a school councillor when we give him the news.
Feel so sorry for him, he doesn’t deserve this
Cheers Hector
posted on 10/7/24
This ex Labour MP seems to think Labour’s failure to call out genocide is what cost her and other colleagues seats.
https://x.com/channel4news/status/1811069277086097878?s=46&t=bPTrpdgNggCdz9igvhmVyw
posted on 10/7/24
I mean first of all does a bear shiiit in the woods
I'm not watching the interview now, it's football time, but does she mention her lack of campaigning locally too?
posted on 10/7/24
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 4 minutes ago
I mean first of all does a bear shiiit in the woods
I'm not watching the interview now, it's football time, but does she mention her lack of campaigning locally too?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, just blaming Keith for not being quicker to call for a ceasefire and waiting for 30,000 Palestinians to die before he had a change of heart.
posted on 10/7/24
Ashworth crying on LBC tonight over it as well, they can’t fathom the Muslamics punishing the party for not having Palestine’s back from the beginning.
Page 4383 of 4713
4384 | 4385 | 4386 | 4387 | 4388