Forum posts made by daniellex

Topic The farmer and the fox riddle
Posted 17 Nov 2016 10:18



what about one of those mini-pigs?

Like piglets? No, the one in the riddle is a proper porker! snorting


Topic The farmer and the fox riddle
Posted 17 Nov 2016 10:15

Have you nice folks not read Animal farm? Some animals are more equal than others. Pig doesn't have to worry about the fox.

Read it at Uni. An amusing and thought-provoking book.

Topic The farmer and the fox riddle
Posted 16 Nov 2016 13:18





But then the fox could eat the pig, or is pork not on the fox's diet?


There's no way a fox could eat a pig!

Topic What turns you on immediately ?
Posted 15 Nov 2016 14:44

Melted chocolate smeared over boobies

Topic Nibiru, Planet X real or bs what do you think?
Posted 15 Nov 2016 12:53

I wrote a story about something like this...


https://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/project-epsilon-a-sexual-fantasy.aspx

D x

Topic If aliens came to our planet...
Posted 15 Nov 2016 12:51






https://upload.lushstories.com/213590579-s-l1600.jpg


Lfunny

Topic The farmer and the fox riddle
Posted 15 Nov 2016 12:22

A farmer has a fox, 10 chickens, a bag of turnips, a sack of grain and a pet pig. He needs to cross a river to get the chickens and the grain to market. He has a boat.

The thing is, the boat will only hold the farmer and two other things. He can't take the fox and the pig, cos then the chickens will eat the grain. He can't take the fox and the grain cos the pig will eat the turnips.

How does the farmer get everything to the other side, in order to sell his stuff at market?


Danielle

Topic If aliens came to our planet...
Posted 15 Nov 2016 11:06

There is other life out there; I don't have any doubt! How is is possible that we are the only planet with life ? It's not, that's how.


It's possible if the conditions that are required for life outweigh the assumption that life exists given the postulated number of planets in the galaxy/universe.


This is a dichotomy that is likely to never be resolved. The space between planets is so unimaginably vast that even an advanced technology is unlikely to be able to overcome the distances involved. Life is likely to be either very common or extremely rare. If life were common, we really should have discovered something microbial, somewhere in the solar system outside of the Earth by now. A little squiggly thing or a mould, or some bacteria...just something! We haven't. If we're the only life in the solar system, then maybe we have to look to our nearest solar system - Alpha Centauri. Well maybe we could go and look there. Trouble is, even at the fastest speed that humans have travelled, it would take us one hundred and twenty four thousand years to get there!
Most stars are many times more distant than this. Hold this thought.

To assume that there is life that can somehow overcome these distances, is about the same logical jump as to assume that somewhere in Africa, Chimpanzees have invented a kettle. Also, as for the super duper advanced and common aliens... where are they?

On the other hand, let's assume that life is extremely rare...

Sorry, it's not happening.

We're alone

D x


Topic Is my story coming true?
Posted 13 Nov 2016 02:08

I began to write my novella, 'Blonde Ambition' in 2013. Then, I predicted that the twentyteens would see a new world order with the break up of the EU and the collapse of the Euro at the centre of this.

This is of course a small back drop to a very erotic love story, which I would hope you read, if you haven't already!

https://www.lushstories.com/stories/love-stories/blonde-ambition-chapter-1.aspx


Thanks

Danielle

Topic Is the poppy a political symbol?
Posted 12 Nov 2016 13:20



If FIFA doesn't like red puppies, I say we sic PETA on them. Start a left rumpus. I like red puppies. Here's a cute red puppy...

https://upload.lushstories.com/1910933613-puppy-training-for-billy-the-fox-red-labrador.jpg

Awww id a cute puppy!

Topic Trump the Traitor - Stepping Back on Repealing Obamacare
Posted 12 Nov 2016 10:28



I agree with you, I think our health care system is brilliant.

I am curious as to why you say it's broken by obesity and alcohol tho? I am no expert but I believe if these 2 are a factor in problems with a persons health and the person is unwilling to cut back on either food or alcohol then the NHS does not go out of its way to spend its funds on treatment for that person. I believe they have to go private which isn't ideal because its expensive and i believe once you have been treated for something it then gets scrapped from your available treatment list and you're sent back to the NHS.

By way of example, a person overweight rarely if at all qualifies for a gastric band, they have to go private and pay for it themselves. Likewise, an alcoholic is not going to be a priority patient for the NHS as it's self-inflicted.

I am not disagreeing with you, I am curious because that was my understanding of how the NHS works and I agree with it if these people are not willing to help themselves then why should the NHS when they can use their money to help people who deserve to be helped.

Just to say, my Mum is a doc, so she tells me a lot of facts about medical matters and she's an uber geek with stuff, so I'm not just making it up lol.

So, with obesity, it's the way it affects people's health rather than just direct treatment for being overweight. Obesity is crippling the NHS and that's not an exaggeration. Being very overweight effects the respiratory system, contributes to heart disease and is a factor in some cancers.

The alcohol problem is more to do with A & E. When my Mum was working as a doc in A & E, she said that most people of an evening who came in, were there for some sort of alcohol related incident. Like well over half!!! They were either suffering from alcoholic poisoning, had fallen over through being drunk and hurting themselves or had got into an altercation and had been injured that way.

Honestly the statistics are truly shocking!


D x

Topic Why Democrats Lost the Presidency
Posted 12 Nov 2016 04:14

Democrats lost for two reasons:

1. because Trump says what a lot of people think in private and has an organic manner that a lot of people identify with.

I think it's less about policy and more about the presentation of ideas. There's no way that Donald Trump was going to make all the Muslims stay out of the USA or make the Mexicans build the Great Wall of the USA. But the fact that he said it, made a connection with a lot of folk, who embrace fears of immigration.

His anecdotes about women while revolting, is what guys say in locker rooms etc. We all know that. It's just not what politicians are meant to say, and I think the populace took that for what it was.

2. Hilary Clinton was too much old school politics of the elite. Also she was damaged by allegations of the dodgy emails. Even though she was absolved of guilt, it was too late. People would think 'no smoke without fire!'

D x

Topic Trump the Traitor - Stepping Back on Repealing Obamacare
Posted 12 Nov 2016 01:25

I don't know about the USA but The National Health Service in the UK is a great system. You pay in something each month and also pay for your optical care and dentist and then when you need medical care it's there - free at the point of service.

As I say a great system, except in the UK it's broken; broken by obesity and alcohol.

Just saying

D x

Topic Two pubs in one day!
Posted 10 Nov 2016 12:58

Hey, well look at that! I submitted a story four or five days ago, and then a poem just a couple of days ago. Both were coincidentally approved within hours of each other. Also, the story is the first RR since the election, which I guess makes it historic.

Here's the story: America's Sweetheart

And here's the poem: I don't mean to cause alarm


I thought you'd been on some sort of booze binge!

drunken

Topic The UK might not be leaving Europe after all
Posted 10 Nov 2016 12:55

Over 50% of voters voted out, to go against that vote would be effing crazy. There would be chaos and riots all over the country without a doubt.

No strictly true. Only 72% actually voted. Of those that voted 52% voted out, so only 37% of voters voted to leave the EU.

D x

Topic Is the poppy a political symbol?
Posted 10 Nov 2016 12:51

So this is the thing.

Sunday is Armistice Day when the British and some other countries commemorate those fallen in conflicts since the First World War. The red poppy has become a symbol of the blood that was shed by all the soldiers, particularly in the two world wars but for more recent battles, too. Because this year, there's a soccer match between England and Scotland, the teams have decided to wear poppy emblems embroidered on their sleeves. Nothing wrong with that - all respectful and appropriate you'd think.

The thing is, FIFA who are the governing body of world soccer say the poppy is a political symbol and therefor inappropriate. They have threatened the English and Scottish Soccer teams with fines and/or deducted points.

There's been a right rumpus about it over here.

So is the poppy a political symbol or have FIFA got their knickers in a twist for no good reason?

Danielle x

Topic The UK might not be leaving Europe after all
Posted 10 Nov 2016 10:26



Hi Danielle

I'll respond to you now, the original poster!

A lot of what you say there is correct. No one expected us to vote to leave, and as such there was no plan. Unfortunately, there can be no way to actually plan for leaving the EU as it's a lot more complicated than they had you believe. The question itself was far too simple for what is a really complicated affair.

If we voted to stay, then we voted to stay and things remain as they were, so that would have been simple enough (such as in 1975). But voting to leave could mean one of many different things- the problem we now have is that no one can agree on what path (of many) to take.

Within parliament, no MP is saying that we shouldn't follow the 'will of the people' (as much as I believe that the 'will of the people' was based on some several whopping lies, many of which have already been proven to be so (and many within hours of the vote), but simply trying to determine how it is we should try and negotiate our way out of the EU.

Now this is the really difficult thing. Because what most MP's strive for is to retain access to the Single Market, and keep our 500 million strong customer base, without having to comply with any free movement of labour rules. The problem with that, however, is that the rest of the EU won't allow us to do that (that's one of the lies the leave campaign told the British people).

So there is an internal debate happening, behind closed doors, which is 'what should our negotiating position be'. But remember, whatever it is they decide that they want isn't necessarily what we are going to get. In fact, what we definitely want, we definitely won't get. So now it's a case of determining what is more important to us. There are lot's of smaller things to consider, but essentially it boils down to these two major things: is it more important for us to keep access to the single market, or is it more important that we are able to control our borders (not be committed to free movement of labour)?

The problem with the question that was asked (in the referendum), was the the British people didn't get to say what type of Brexit they wanted (a 'soft' (keep access to the single market) or 'hard' (completely leave EU and the single market) one). The next problem is that the MP's who campaigned for Brexit also can't agree with what they want.

This is why I think a general election HAS to be called for. We don't need another referendum, but simply for each party to have a manifesto, with their Brexit plans detailed for us all to read, that the UK public can vote for. The manifestos would probably go: Conservative, hard Brexit. Labour, soft Brexit. Lib Dems, no Brexit* (or somewhere close to no Brexit....).

Because as things stand, whatever it is the conservative party push for in Parliament hasn't been voted for by the British people. Some think that it has, but it actually hasn't. Yes, it has been voted for to leave the EU, but as I said....that could mean several things.

Referendums aren't legally binding (they just aren't....anyone can very easily look it up (I thought)) and that's what the courts have confirmed recently). What they are saying is that triggering article 50 has to be ratified in Parliament, and for that to happen the plans for Brexit have to be agreed on (which no one can)

Now, if the public voted on a manifesto of how they want to leave the EU, especially if that party has a majority, it would make the process so much easier and clearer.

That's why I believe we NEED a general election. I simply can't see how this is going to go through the both houses of Parliament without that election. If the Tory government pushes for a hard brexit, it would be far too easy for either houses of parliament to simply block it because 'that's not what the people voted for'- and many of them wouldn't have.

It's just too complicated to not have an election, and not having an election would be undemocratic (in the eyes of many, including myself)

To be also very very clear, no one is saying that the 'will of the people' shouldn't be followed, but simply that no one really knows what the 'will of the people' actually is. Therefore, an election needs to take place. There will be a constitutional crises, in my opinion, without one.

What you shouldn't believe, however, is that the court of law have 'overturned' the referendum result (which many have falsely suggested), or the MP's are going to try and ignore the referendum result (even with no legal requirement for them to following it. Overturning a referendum result would be completely unprecedented).

Finally, remember what I said, in that whatever manifesto is agreed on is simply our negotiating position and what it is we are striving to achieve in leaving the EU (and not necessarily what we will get). Still, a negotiating position is at least a start! Somewhere to begin so that Article 50 can be triggered.

*some will tell you that 'no Brexit' would be overturning the referendum result, but I don't think it will be. As I've pointed out, and what can't be argued, is that 'Brexit' can take one of many different forms. Those who say '52% have voted to leave the EU' may as well say 'a referendum was taken on what to eat for dinner. 48% said Pizza, 52% said not Pizza'.

However, what if (for arguments sake) 48% of people wanted pizza, 32 % wanted Chinese, and 20% wanted fish and chips? In that scenario, surely the 'will of the people' is to have pizza?

As I said, it's very complicated and there is no simple answer. If the conservatives push for a hard brexit, but more than 2% of the public would rather have no brexit than a hard brexit (extremely probable), then the actual 'will of the people' was to not leave the EU



Hi TAL,

you made some interesting points and have helped me understand one or two things better. I've been really reading up about this, so am in a better position to comment.

I think I might drill down on something. As you say the High Court didn't overturn Brexit but merely ruled on a point of law that says that Parliament must vote on the triggering of article 50. I don't see how the Supreme Court can overturn that. It's not like there was some equivocation or abstruse legal point that was subject to interpretation, but a pretty black and white issue.

That calls into question Theresa May's intuition and trustworthyness, if 1. She thought she could get this through by the seat of her pants to begin with and 2. That she will secure the Supreme court's backing. The next step would be to go the European courts for a ruling!

D x

Topic rules rules rules
Posted 05 Nov 2016 01:06

asstr

bless you!

Topic Sluts
Posted 04 Nov 2016 13:35

I don't think there is anything wrong with calling someone a slut in the right context. When it's used as a slur, it's no better or worse than any other term of abuse.

I don't get the connection with Neanderthals.

Topic The UK might not be leaving Europe after all
Posted 04 Nov 2016 12:50

So, yesterday the High Court ruled that the UK government can't trigger article 50 without the consent of parliament. Article 50, for those who don't know is the mechanism by which a country leaves the EU.

I been talking to my Granddad about this, cos he knows about all this political stuff and he thinks that UK might remain in the EU after all.

If I've got it right, the situation is this:

Nobody in government or any of the grey suits in the civil service ever expected that the UK would vote to leave. Because of that, when we did, there was no plans in place, no strategy or framework to expedite our leaving. We're already five months after the referendum and nothing has happened. Even before Article 50 is invoked, there will need to be negotiations as to what the UK want in a post EU world. That will need to be debated and voted on. The chances are, the majority of MPs will be anti-Brexit, which means any bill to leave the EU will be un-ratified and lead to a constitutional crisis. This could mean we'll have an early General Election, except that's not down to the Prime Minister after Nick Clegg changed the law.

So, assuming the government gets the Queen's approval to dissolve parliament, which could itself be tricky, it would be down to the major parties to have Article 50 as a manifesto pledge. That might be what most voters want, but it would be highly unpopular with MPs and also be difficult to encompass among all the other stuff, like the economy, law and order and the National Health service. It would also be politically damaging if the incoming government is tasked with negotiating Article 50 and all that, if they end up being the party that broke Britain's place in Europe.

What's more likely is that after a prolonged series of stalling tactics and convoluted legal and political hurdles there will be a kind of stagnation with Brexit. We'll decide to have a second referendum on the EU with a different question.

Danielle

Topic The Great British Bake Off
Posted 29 Oct 2016 06:53

I havent watched GBBO, but I do watch The Great British Menu. I dont know how the viewing figures compare, but it seems they have two big cooking programs. Didnt they also have the Hairy Bikers or was that another channel? If they want to be THE popular channel, wouldn't you keep ALL the popular programs? and yes, I am sure they could afford, seeing as you have to pay for a TV licence to watch the BBC iPlayer now :(

They're not even in the same ball park. If a show gets half the viewing figures of the Bake Off it would be considered very successful. The final was watched by more than half the viewing public. That's crazy. I hope the BBC bring out a rival show

Topic The Walking Dead
Posted 28 Oct 2016 13:39

We just watched the Season 7 premier. Yep, that was pretty messed up!

D x

Topic The Great British Bake Off
Posted 27 Oct 2016 10:24

I'm gutted it's finished. The stupid BBC could easily have afforded the 75 million pounds to keep it going. Last night's final was watched by 14.8 million people, which justifies the money that Love Productions were asking.

It's going to be rubbish when it goes to Channel 4.

Topic $100 Prize - Design Competition for our Default Avatars
Posted 11 Sep 2016 04:41

This is easy.

Titties.

There. Competition closed.

You and your titties!

Interpret that how you like drunken

Topic Why is violence more acceptable in the U.S. than sex?
Posted 29 Aug 2016 09:56

I thought of posting this in the Arts Forum, but think that this may get more controversial.

So in movies (and TV), it is far more easy to see a horrible murder, act of violence, or other violent activities in a movie rating (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17) than relatively innocuous nudity (not talking explicit sex).

Clearly violence is more acceptable than sex / nudity here; but why?
What can we do to change this?

Children will see 8,000 acts of violence on TV before they leave elementary school. 200,000 before they are eighteen (CSUN). Yet on TV, they won't see a nipple (to use an example). Even if we limit this to adults, movies will show a disproportionate number violent acts relative to the number of sexual situations shown.

This is exactly the same situation in the UK. Less so in Europe.

I don't think violence is actually more acceptable than sex, but that its portrayal in drama is easier to simulate. Anyone can make a programme with fake guns and stage blood etc and make it appear real. Sex, unless you're limiting it to frottage, which is a bit niche, requires a degree of nudity and a context that is harder to include in TV and film. You normally find there's a token sex scene - maybe a topless woman and a fumble under the sheets, but to depict sex with the same convincing nature as violence would mean that the programme makers would transgress the UK's archaic decency laws.

There is a lot more nudity in European TV and commercials are more risqué, but even then, full sex isn't shown on mainstream.

D x

Topic Is Sharia Law already in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK...should we worry...
Posted 28 Aug 2016 08:56




PS: the video doesn't work.

Bum. Looks like that Youtube channel closed. I've added a link to the BBC Iplayer. Same video

D x

Topic Is Sharia Law already in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK...should we worry...
Posted 28 Aug 2016 01:14



Why of course! The FABLE of "Islamophobia" created and SOLD BY? Georgie Porgie Soros! There is NO SUCH THING. There IS a clear recognition of the brutal, barbaric and sadist TOTAL intolerance of the SO CALLED "religion of peace" As well as it's basic incompatibility with liberty. But you just keep swallowing those sugar coated BS pills the leftist media and ass kissing politicians keep feeding you...

I'm a bit busy at the moment and needed time to think how to respond to your rebuttal.

I have a good friend who is a Muslim, though not especially a practising one. She knows a lot more about Islam than me and we've talked about all this Sharia law thing and Muslim bashing etc.

Islam is a religion of peace but it's been hijacked by terrorists who purport to be representing a fundamental version of Islam. It's this that was behind 911 and 7/7 and all the recent stuff in Europe and has dripped into the public consciousness and created this anti-Islamic feeling - Islamophobia - call it what you well. I guess in this context the word phobia, which I suspect you took issue to, isn't a phobia in the sense of arachnophobia or agoraphobia etc, so maybe semantically it's slight off but hey ho!

I think part of the problem if you can call it that, is that we non-Muslims think that normal Muslims should be shouting from the rooftops in opposition to the terrorists who have given their religion such a bad name. The fact is, that people including Muslims just want to get on with their lives and don't think it's their responsibility to defend their religion. The Muslim Council of Britain have gone some way to redressing the balance but maybe this is one time when the sword is mightier than the pen.

Islam clearly has some work to do in terms of its PR and that's after taking my sugar coated BS pills. The treatment of women in places like Saudi Arabia is frankly disgusting although again I think there is a large cultural element to this and not wholly a flaw of Islam itself.

The recent programme by Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain 'The Chronicles of Nadiaya' has a section where she elegantly and poignantly explains her reason for wearing hijab and comes at a particularly appropriate juncture, given all the nonsense surrounding the burkini. If you're interested, the relevant part of the video comes at 17 minutes 45 seconds.

Chronicles of Nadiya

Thank you in advance for your measured response.

Danielle

Topic Is Sharia Law already in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK...should we worry...
Posted 25 Aug 2016 09:34

This is all part of the narrative surrounding Islamophobia. As AEP said, there are already limited Sharia councils in the UK, but there is no way that this is going to supersede statute.

Also, wearing the niqab is entirely cultural and not specifically Islamic.

D x

Topic Blatant ethnic bias by Cosmopolitan
Posted 25 Aug 2016 09:23

Is it just me, or is this actually quite shocking? It doesn't say the World's Most Beautiful White Women, but the World's Most Beautiful Women and there's not one non-European!!! What about Lauren London, Bre Scullark, Ciara or Rihanna! Ciara has to be in the top 10 and is certainly more beautiful than some of the 'official top 10.'

And to try and justify their list, Cosmo make up some hunkum bunkum about it being scientific. Scientific my bum!

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/a63214/worlds-most-beautiful-women/

D x

Topic Pubic hair helped win GB Olympic Gold
Posted 22 Aug 2016 09:07

I don't cycle but this makes sense!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3743239/Why-Olympic-cyclists-DON-T-wax-bikini-lines-Pubic-hair-protects-against-saddle-soreness.html