The money is in the eyes

Welcome to TMO

Home
Talk
Rants
Life
Music
Web
Media
Society
Sex
Announce
Games

How do I get a tag ?

Read the FAQ !



email us
TMO Talk Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» TMO Talk » Life » Politics, eh? (Page 4)

 
This topic is comprised of pages: 8 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Author Topic: Politics, eh?
Ringo

 - posted      Profile for Ringo           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Octavia:
quote:
Originally posted by Ringo:
abolish hereditary peerships in favour of elected representatives.

I don't understand why anyone wants an elected House of Lords. The House of Lords as it stands is the one voice of sanity in government - they're not controlled by the whips, they're not saying whatever they think will get them elected, they're now largely people who've got to the top of their career tree on merit (the hereditary element was actually downsized a lot several years ago) and usually genuinely know what they're talking about. It's all very well saying it's unrepresentative but anyone who thinks MPs are representative has probably never met one. The House of Lords is the only thing that might actually represent the will of the people rather than the will of the party machine and the whips.

What I'd rather see is ministers who aren't MPs. MPs shouldn't be allowed to run ministries, they should be in charge of challenging the people who are running the ministries. Who should be people who actually understand the thing the ministry is supposed to be in charge of.

Yeah, I'm a bit torn on the matter really. The house of lords has been responsible for vetoing some of the more hair-brained ideas put forth by parliament, and you wonder if maybe such ideas would be effectively unopposed if the house were comprised entirely by people who are very possibly motivated by personal gain.

It adds a bit of balance and reducing the size of the house surely reduces the balance. Hereditary peers aren't really the answer, but maybe elected officials isn't any better a solution.

Posts: 12222  |  IP: Logged
MiscellaneousFiles

 - posted      Profile for MiscellaneousFiles           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I largely agree with Octavia. The Lords might not be perfect, but I think it needs tweaking rather than replacing entirely.
Posts: 14017  |  IP: Logged
Kanye West
TMO Member
 - posted      Profile for Kanye West           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
readers will be cheered to know that I'm feeling better, but still not 100%
Posts: 3834  |  IP: Logged
Tilde
TMO Member
 - posted      Profile for Tilde           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps if they cut it down to just a couple of lords and made their accommodation a lot smaller. Two Lords and a static caravan.
Posts: 1641  |  IP: Logged
Kanye West
TMO Member
 - posted      Profile for Kanye West           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
or one Lord. Theo Paphitis.
Posts: 3834  |  IP: Logged
dance margarita
TMO Member
 - posted      Profile for dance margarita           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
or THE lord. lord andrew lloyd- webber. call me a radical, but i think that a nation which is afraid to give control of all its checks and balances to the man who wrote 'benjamin calypso' is a nation afraid to look itself in the eye.

--------------------
evil is boring: cheerful power

Posts: 1655  |  IP: Logged
Cherry In Hove
Channel 39
 - posted      Profile for Cherry In Hove           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Could we not just have the lord of the dance Michael Flatley as the person who makes all the final decisions for the country?

I suppose the worry is that he could be explaining his decisions and people would be so transfixed by his flailing legs that they don't notice he's just passed a new law forcing people to listen to Irish folk music for twentyfour hours a day.

Posts: 4934  |  IP: Logged
dang65
it's all the rage
 - posted      Profile for dang65           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Octavia:
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
I'm kind of surprised no one (that I've heard about) has questioned the legality of giving an allowance to one group of people, basically because they have voluntarily joined a club.

Why would it be illegal?
Well, I'm not sure where the law really stands on such things, but what this plan boils down to is rewarding certain people simply because they have voluntarily joined a club - The Married People - which doesn't actually make them any different from anyone else.

Having a child makes you different from people who don't have children - and you get Child Benefit to help you. Being too old to work makes you different from young people - and you get a State Pension to help you. Being handicapped or disabled makes you different from the able-bodied - and you may get care or special equipment supplied to help you. Being married does not make you in any way different from people who are not married - and the Tories want to give you an allowance for it.

Why? How is that justified? It's actually being treated like an insurance premium. You're a 40-year-old woman, so you're statistically less likely to have an accident than an 18-year-old lad - so have a discount on your car insurance. You're a married couple, so you're statistically more likely to... what? Settle down and buy a house and have kids and be jolly nice, *cough* and vote Tory *cough* ? - so have a discount on your tax payments. Eh?

If it is legal to give out allowances like that, then I don't think it should be.

Posts: 8467  |  IP: Logged
Thorn Davis

 - posted      Profile for Thorn Davis           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
Why? How is that justified?

How is it justified? As I understand it a man stands up and says "If you vote me in I will give a handout to married people". So then aaallll the people of Britain over 18 go out on the same day and then decide whether they want this man to get into power and do the things he says he's going to do. If more people say "yes we want you to do it", then he is allowed to give his hand out to married people. It is therefore justified on the grounds that people voted him into government after he stated that this was something he was going to do if voted into government.

If people don't like the things the man says, then they vote for another man, who isn't going to give a handout to married people. If most of the people vote for that guy then giving a handout to married people isn't justified and doesn't happen.

Posts: 13759  |  IP: Logged
Ringo

 - posted      Profile for Ringo           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the name is a bit misleading. It also affects those in civil partnerships. It's basically a tax allowance for any long term couple who are prepared to legally declare themselves to be a partnership. Whether you achieve this by havving a big wedding, or just by signing some papers in a registry office, is entirely up to you really.

Regretting the divorce?

Posts: 12222  |  IP: Logged
Thorn Davis

 - posted      Profile for Thorn Davis           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do agree that the marriage allowance thing seems like a blatant bribe. It's not even that substantial a bribe, either, compared to the 'buy your council flat' thing that Maggie came up with to bribe people to vote Tory who would never normally vote Tory.
Posts: 13759  |  IP: Logged
dang65
it's all the rage
 - posted      Profile for dang65           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
EDIT: Response to two posts back.

Yeah, it's a little bit more complicated than that though, isn't it.

There are still rules and regulations. You're saying that this can be stopped by people voting against it, which is fine and reassuring, but I'm saying that it should actually be against the law of the land to do it. I don't mean, just not in the legislation; I mean it should be a crime.

There would be media outrage if the Tories said, "Vote for us and we will ensure that all businessmen who give funds to us will have their taxes cut." And I'm pretty sure that would be illegal. But really, it's the same thing, near enough. Just giving money to people who have no greater need for it than anyone else.

[ 16.04.2010, 11:04: Message edited by: dang65 ]

Posts: 8467  |  IP: Logged
Thorn Davis

 - posted      Profile for Thorn Davis           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
EDIT: Response to two posts back.

Yeah, it's a little bit more complicated than that though, isn't it.

There are still rules and regulations. You're saying that this can be stopped by people voting against it, which is fine and reassuring, but I'm saying that it should actually be against the law of the land to do it. I don't mean, just not in the legislation; I mean it should be a crime.


Wha? You can't make it illegal for the government to implement policies that the people of Britain voted them in to implement. That's madness. Who on earth would get to decide which policies were illegal? If there's an unelected body deciding that the elected government can only make certain types of policy, that's anti-democratic, surely?

quote:
There would be media outrage if the Tories said, "Vote for us and we will ensure that all businessmen who give funds to us will have their taxes cut." And I'm pretty sure that would be illegal. But really, it's the same thing, near enough. Just giving money to people who have no greater need for it than anyone else.
Well, arguably a lot of Tory policy does amount to doing favours for big business. If they literally came out and said "Vote Tory and Vote to give big business a fat tax rebate", then yeah, they would be roundly mocked in the papers, and all the rest of it. And if they did that, people probably wouldn't vote them in. On the other hand if people said "actually - fuck it man, big business deserves a break" and did vote them in... well. It would then be unethical for the party - as the elected representatives of the will of the people - not to follow through on their promise.

Also, although to give rebates to favourite businesses might not be illegal, it would be unpopular with every party other than the Tories (and maybe even some tory Mps would be against it) therefore, when it came to getting something through parliament, MPs who were anything other than Tory would vote against it. Unless they vocally agreed with it, in which case - again - they're obliged to perform the will of the people, which - one assumes - is to carry out the ideas and policies they said they would do before they were elected.

[ 16.04.2010, 11:22: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]

Posts: 13759  |  IP: Logged
dang65
it's all the rage
 - posted      Profile for dang65           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
Wha? You can't make it illegal for the government to implement policies that the people of Britain voted them in to implement. That's madness. Who on earth would get to decide which policies were illegal? If there's an unelected body deciding that the elected government can only make certain types of policy, that's anti-democratic, surely?

There are restrictions on what policies elected governments can implement. There are constitutional conventions and fundamental principles. Technically, these can be changed, but they are entrenched in our history and customs and, basically, they don't get changed.

One of those fundamental principles is equality before the law - "each individual is subject to the same laws, with no individual or group having special legal privileges".

Giving a tax allowance to married couples may not class as "legal privileges", but there probably is a similar fundamental principle relating to financial privileges being given to individuals or groups for no justifiable reason.

To me, it's the same as, say, allowing judges to be let off when they're caught speeding, or allowing MPs to claim moat cleaning on expenses when anyone else claiming that would have HMRC round banging on their portcullis first thing in the morning.

Also, there would be no requirement for debate or parliamentay vote involved in introducing this allowance. The Chancellor would simply put it in his budget and there it is, allowance allocated.

Plenty of people who voted Tory may completely disagree with the allowance, but voted for lots of other policies which they really liked (just as I'm going to vote Labour despite disagreeing completely with ID cards). Plenty of other people won't have voted at all, or will have voted in constituencies where the party they voted for didn't stand a chance against the established party (like where I live [Mad] )

So a tiny, tiny minority of citizens/subjects may actually favour this policy, but you would consider it unethical if the Tories failed to follow through on their promise. What I'm saying is that something else should override such promises, from the very start. A right of equality, basically.

Posts: 8467  |  IP: Logged
Octavia
I hate Valentine's Day.
Stupid commercialised crap
 - posted      Profile for Octavia           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
Also, there would be no requirement for debate or parliamentay vote involved in introducing this allowance. The Chancellor would simply put it in his budget and there it is, allowance allocated.

Umm. That's not how the Budget works. The Finance Bill gets debated in both houses - it's simply a convention that it gets voted through more or less unchanged, though there are nearly always minor changes. A good example would be the 10p tax rate that they were going to get rid of. There was a storm of protest and they had to retain it.

In any case, none of our constitutional principles are written down, and the principle of equality before the law in no way prevents any government (and ALL governments do this) doing its bit of social engineering. In the simplest terms, the government makes the law. We have consented to tax being collected from us, and we get no say in precisely how it's arranged. For example there are plenty of arguments to be had around the things that VAT is applied to - one man's cake (taxed) is another man's biscuit (untaxed). If they want to tweak the way taxes are collected and who they are collected from, it can't possibly be illegal. In this particular case, the Tories have got a bunch of research demonstrating that, statistically, the married or civil partnershipped couple is a stable social unit that in general (and you can only deal in generalities here) contributes more in terms of social structure - childcare etc - than single units. Plus, you know, we're talking about less than £3 a week here, which won't buy your married couple so much as a pair of cappuccinos.

It doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't thousands of hard-working, responsible single mothers - just that the stats are against them.

[ 17.04.2010, 04:21: Message edited by: Octavia ]

Posts: 3351  |  IP: Logged
dang65
it's all the rage
 - posted      Profile for dang65           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Octavia:
Umm. That's not how the Budget works. The Finance Bill gets debated in both houses - it's simply a convention that it gets voted through more or less unchanged, though there are nearly always minor changes. A good example would be the 10p tax rate that they were going to get rid of. There was a storm of protest and they had to retain it.

I'm a bit dumb about these things, admittedly, but if it's all debated in both houses first then how come the Budget is always such a surprise to everyone when it's read out?
quote:
Originally posted by Octavia:
In any case, none of our constitutional principles are written down, and the principle of equality before the law in no way prevents any government (and ALL governments do this) doing its bit of social engineering.

I thought that was one of those urban myths? We don't have a written constitution, but we do have written statutes and so on.
quote:
Originally posted by Octavia:
In the simplest terms, the government makes the law. We have consented to tax being collected from us, and we get no say in precisely how it's arranged. For example there are plenty of arguments to be had around the things that VAT is applied to - one man's cake (taxed) is another man's biscuit (untaxed). If they want to tweak the way taxes are collected and who they are collected from, it can't possibly be illegal.

It may not class as "illegal", as in being a crime, but I still think that it's contrary to the fundamental principles of the law. Budgetary allowances are based around need - old people get heating payments, children get free school dinners if their parents earn below a certain amount, etc. But I don't know of any financial allowances which are granted to a group of people simply because they are members of a club. There is nothing whatsoever which distinguishes married couples from other couples or other people in general, other than that they have gone through the ceremony of marriage. Nothing that distinguishes their needs or financial situation or entitlement, I mean.
quote:
Originally posted by Octavia:
In this particular case, the Tories have got a bunch of research demonstrating that, statistically, the married or civil partnershipped couple is a stable social unit that in general (and you can only deal in generalities here) contributes more in terms of social structure - childcare etc - than single units. Plus, you know, we're talking about less than £3 a week here, which won't buy your married couple so much as a pair of cappuccinos.

It doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't thousands of hard-working, responsible single mothers - just that the stats are against them.

You must see the absurdity of those last couple of paragraphs, surely? You can't start favouring people (even with a free cappuccino) just because they statistically contribute more in terms of social structure! Like I said before, that's turning tax into an insurance premium scheme. Where next? More allowances for the Middle Classes? More allowances for people who wear suits and ties instead of hoodies?

I know I'm making a fuss about something which may appear to be a really minor issue, but it's the principal of the thing. It's discriminating against people because of their beliefs. Many people don't believe in marriage, or, in fact may not be able to afford to get married. And so on.

This will be another TMO debate in which I'm taking a view which no one else seems to agree with, or they think it's so unimportant that it's not worth even discussing, but it's the sort of thing that really riles me. [Mad] Just ignore it if you want. [Frown]

Posts: 8467  |  IP: Logged
Octavia
I hate Valentine's Day.
Stupid commercialised crap
 - posted      Profile for Octavia           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I meant to come back to this dang and then forgot to check the thread.
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
if it's all debated in both houses first then how come the Budget is always such a surprise?

It's debated later, after the speech has been read out. The speech is essentially a long summary of the provisions of the Finance Bill as it will be put before both Houses, with a bit of PR-y spin added in.
quote:
I thought that was one of those urban myths? We don't have a written constitution, but we do have written statutes.
Yes, but our statutes don't actually refer to any kind of constitutional arrangement. For example, Mrs T was able to start and Tony Blair to continue a concentration of power in Downing St - causing a far more Presidential style to emerge and doing a great deal to hamstring both the Ministries and Parliament. There's nothing in statute to hinder that. If we did have a constitution then it would be 'above' statute, as it were. If you compare with the US model, you need different (far bigger) majorities to amend the Constitution than you do to simply pass a bill.
quote:
It may not class as "illegal", as in being a crime, but I still think that it's contrary to the fundamental principles of the law. Budgetary allowances are based around need - old people get heating payments, children get free school dinners if their parents earn below a certain amount, etc.
It would be nice if this were the case... Budgetary allowances are nearly always about a bit of social engineering coupled with a bit of political maneouvering. Who do you want to vote for you next time? who can't you afford to offend? who have you made promises to (all kinds of people - supporters, businesses, other people in your party whose support you've needed)? Did you know there's a tax allowance for office parties? Tolley's Tax Guide has doubled in size in the last ten years (from two 400-page volumes of tax law to four) as Labour has tweaked and fiddled with the tax system to facilitate its social policies. Very, very few benefits or tax breaks are based on need, other than things like pensions and basic dole.
quote:
But I don't know of any financial allowances which are granted to a group of people simply because they are members of a club.There is nothing whatsoever which distinguishes married couples from other couples or other people in general, other than that they have gone through the ceremony of marriage. Nothing that distinguishes their needs or financial situation or entitlement, I mean.

Those allowances are there, though. If people have children, they're members of a club too, yet we give them child benefit, tax credits, VAT off children's clothes etc etc etc. Plus it goes to my point about social engineering - if a particular thing has been demonstrated to be of benefit to society, then government will want to - indeed arguably should - encourage that.

Incidentally, has anyone changed the way they plan to vote because of what's happened in the last few weeks? I mean, because of the election campaign?

Posts: 3351  |  IP: Logged
New Way Of Decay

 - posted      Profile for New Way Of Decay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Incidentally, has anyone changed the way they plan to vote because of what's happened in the last few weeks? I mean, because of the election campaign?
Not really, but I had a newfound respect for Gordon Brown. Knowing there was a human being rattling around in there. I'd probably voted for him if he'd had the guts to say what he thought to that stupid woman's face.

[ 04.05.2010, 09:42: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]

--------------------
BUY A TICKET AND WATCH SOME METAL

Posts: 11617  |  IP: Logged
dang65
it's all the rage
 - posted      Profile for dang65           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
But I don't know of any financial allowances which are granted to a group of people simply because they are members of a club.There is nothing whatsoever which distinguishes married couples from other couples or other people in general, other than that they have gone through the ceremony of marriage. Nothing that distinguishes their needs or financial situation or entitlement, I mean.

quote:
Originally posted by Octavia:
Those allowances are there, though. If people have children, they're members of a club too, yet we give them child benefit, tax credits, VAT off children's clothes etc etc etc. Plus it goes to my point about social engineering - if a particular thing has been demonstrated to be of benefit to society, then government will want to - indeed arguably should - encourage that.

This point is still really bugging me. Why do you consider people who have children to be just part of a club in the same way as married people? People who have children have additional financial responsibility, and children have rights of protection and housing and education. And, let's not forget, they are our future.

There is a clear difference between people who have children and people who do not have children.

But how is there a difference between people who are married and people who are not married? There actually is no difference at all, any more than there is a difference between a baby who is christened and a baby who is not christened, or an adult who is a member of the local golf club and an adult who is not a member of the local golf club.

Both the christening of babies and membership of golf clubs may be indicators of traditionalism, conformity, respectability and unlikeliness to become a revolutionary terrorist bomber, but should that entitle people who are christened or are members of their local golf club to a tax discount?

To me, the whole thing remains absurd. I'd go so far as to say that social engineering of that sort is a hugely regressive policy, and damned un-English.

Posts: 8467  |  IP: Logged
Octavia
I hate Valentine's Day.
Stupid commercialised crap
 - posted      Profile for Octavia           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
I'd go so far as to say that social engineering of that sort is a hugely regressive policy, and damned un-English.

Good lord, if you don't like social engineering then socialism is the worst possible option!
E4UBB

[ 05.05.2010, 09:32: Message edited by: Octavia ]

Posts: 3351  |  IP: Logged
Thorn Davis

 - posted      Profile for Thorn Davis           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I liked Gordon Brown's speech about fairness. If life were like a movie, that would win him the election by a landslide and we'd all go on to be happy and caring and help each other out under the warm, familial wing of Gordon Brown. Why can't life be more like a movie? *kicks life.
Posts: 13759  |  IP: Logged
dang65
it's all the rage
 - posted      Profile for dang65           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Octavia:
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
I'd go so far as to say that social engineering of that sort is a hugely regressive policy, and damned un-English.

Good lord, if you don't like social engineering then socialism is the worst possible option!
Tell me more? Do you believe that socialism hands out allowances according to who has simply declared themselves to be in a different situation, even though they actually aren't? Of course there are loopholes which are exploited (and then reviewed and closed as was ever the case), but no policies which specifically state, "This person has declared himself to be the Grand Nog Of Frogs and this assumption of responsibility demonstrates his great value to society. Give him an extra 50 quid a week." That would be absurd. And doing the same for people who are married is equally absurd.

Also, you're not answering my genuine question: What makes married people different from not-married people?

Posts: 8467  |  IP: Logged
Kanye West
TMO Member
 - posted      Profile for Kanye West           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
married people are more passive aggressive.
Posts: 3834  |  IP: Logged
MiscellaneousFiles

 - posted      Profile for MiscellaneousFiles           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
What makes married people different from not-married people?

 -
Posts: 14017  |  IP: Logged
Kanye West
TMO Member
 - posted      Profile for Kanye West           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i'm pretty sure I'm not going to get married.
Posts: 3834  |  IP: Logged
MiscellaneousFiles

 - posted      Profile for MiscellaneousFiles           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -
Posts: 14017  |  IP: Logged
dang65
it's all the rage
 - posted      Profile for dang65           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles:
quote:
Originally posted by dang65:
What makes married people different from not-married people?

 -
quote:
_______________________________________________

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT MR DANG 65 IS NOW

THE GRAND NOG OF FROGS

5th day of May 2010
_______________________________________________


Posts: 8467  |  IP: Logged
Thorn Davis

 - posted      Profile for Thorn Davis           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kanye West:
married people are more passive aggressive.

Marriage is an important part of getting ahead: lets people know you're not a homo. Married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch. Ladies see the ring, they know immediately you must have some cash or your cock must work.
Posts: 13759  |  IP: Logged
Kanye West
TMO Member
 - posted      Profile for Kanye West           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
being married is gay.
Posts: 3834  |  IP: Logged
Kanye West
TMO Member
 - posted      Profile for Kanye West           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
it's only acceptable if you get married then your wife dies in a car crash because of some hit and run punk and you sit in bars drinking shots and a girl in a cut off t-shirt and tight jeans says "drinking like that, you gotta have a story" and you say "This isn't jacakanory. Beat it". and she cocks her head and says "Oooh, an angry drunk, my favourite, just like my daddy" and you kind of half grin, half snort, and she says "you married?" and you say "I was once" and she says "girl leave ya?" and you say "You could say that... now leave me alone...let me drink in peace..Bartender! Keep em coming.." and she says "huh, you don't make it easy for a girl, you know that?" and you say "I'll make it real simple then: Get lost" and she says "fuck you, jerk" and you just do another shot and some guy on the other side of the bar breaks a new game of pool. The dude cleaning the glasses behind the bar looks at the girl and slowly shakes his head. A cricket scuttles across a window sill. The girl sighs and goes to leave but just then a fucking armoured JCB comes right through the front of the bar, and you grab a desert eagle pistol from your jeans, scream "Get down!" to the girl, and start blazing.

[ 05.05.2010, 06:20: Message edited by: Kanye West ]

Posts: 3834  |  IP: Logged
Black Mask

 - posted      Profile for Black Mask           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pffft! Desert Eagle... fag.

--------------------
sweet

Posts: 13919  |  IP: Logged
Kanye West
TMO Member
 - posted      Profile for Kanye West           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
then like swat people bust in through the windows and shoot up the bartender like how ed-209 shoots up mr 'point it at ed-209', and whisky goes fucking everywhere and you grab her hand and go "come on, let's go!" and she screams over the noise of ricochetting bullets "are you fucking kidding me!" and you shout back "If you don't, you're dead!" and she shouts "Well I guess I don't have a - " but then all the whiskey sets on fire and you shout "IT's gonna blow! Come on!" and run into the back room with the bar exploding behind you and then it's really dark in the back room and you are both crouched behind a crate of jack daniels and she says "okay, just who are those guys and what the FUCK is going on" and you say "let's just say I'm behind on payments" and she says "Oh great, a real wise-ass...we're gonna die.. I shoulda just stayed at home and waited for Mr Right, my mother said that it would end like this but i didn't listen, oh no, i had to have it my way, i had to go out and - " and you grab and shake her and say "OK now listen to me! I've got too much business to take care of to think about dying today. After we make it through this, then you can start worrying about Mr Right. Until then, I'd advise you to stop babbling, and start concentrating on not getting shot." then you pop out your magazine from your pistol and start putting a new one in and you go "These guys are pros. I can assure you that if you run, you're dead. If you scream, you're dead. In fact, if you do any god damn thing that I haven't told you to do, you're dead. Got that?" and you pull the top of your pistol to load one in the chamber, and she sort of huffs and then you pull a little pistol from your cowboy boot at give it to her and she says "What am I, the fucking terminator? I'm not about to start killing people, no way" and you say "then it'll be both our funerals..." but just then you hear the noise of somebody turning on night vision and you go "SSshshsh! They've got goggles.... stay really still" and she whispers angrily "what are you, public enemy number one? You been caught banging the president's daughter? This is NOT my day" and you say "it's not theirs either", reach for a bottle of jack, and start making a molotov cocktail.

[ 05.05.2010, 06:45: Message edited by: Kanye West ]

Posts: 3834  |  IP: Logged
Kanye West
TMO Member
 - posted      Profile for Kanye West           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
in that totally non-faggy situation, it's acceptable to have been married.
Posts: 3834  |  IP: Logged
Ringo

 - posted      Profile for Ringo           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That sounded pretty faggy to me
Posts: 12222  |  IP: Logged
Kanye West
TMO Member
 - posted      Profile for Kanye West           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
you sound pretty faggy to me.
Posts: 3834  |  IP: Logged


 
This topic is comprised of pages: 8 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | The Moon Online

copyright TMO y2k+

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.6.1