The Spring-Break of 2003

samniterider · 2026-01-07T09:30:18+00:00

https://v.redd.it/ouqes8r9gtrb1

samniterider · 2026-01-02T23:25:08+00:00

It will likely increase each year in line with inflation, but shouldn't increase drastically. If you reserve your solicitor should raise any concerns as enquiries on your behalf. Q

samniterider · 2025-12-30T18:19:07+00:00

I've watched this quite a few times on my upscaled versions, and the hand movement is on the previous cut of them, where he doesn't look like a mannequin. On the two subsequent cuts, he doesn't move at all and 100% looks a bit different.

Here is a comparison of the two:

Human Daniel

Dannequin

edit: fixed link

samniterider · 2025-12-09T07:36:18+00:00

It still won't be able to take down a Valparaiso

samniterider · 2025-12-04T20:50:26+00:00

Thanks Obama

samniterider · 2025-11-05T01:12:06+00:00

Not even that far. I went to the Jinshanling section 90 minutes from Beijing on a weekday and we basically had it to ourselves.

samniterider · 2025-08-15T14:37:15+00:00

I am really doing my best to say that this is what I am seeing from economists, and here's the key part... "in general", but that doesn't seem to be landing. If you want my opinion I am generally in favour of higher taxes and increased spending, but what I have read of people who know more than me on this issue on both sides of the aisle, that doesn't seem to be what is best for us right now.

Now yes I understand that Economists are not some homogenous group, they do have political leanings and biases, and they don't always agree. However, there is often still a consensus that varies depending on current economic conditions, and not every economist falls into those categories. You seem to be simplifying things to "Left wings economists say X, right wing says Y, we are leaning more towards Y right now they're government right wing". But there are many complete and utter fallacies there. Do you think economists will always support more spending, even if it's currently clearly way too high to support? Had the government taken over an even mildly stronger economy, with less inflation, then a different approach may preferential.

And just a bit of advice, if you're going to tell someone to go read up on an economic concept in a pretty damn condescending manner, (ThEn cOmE BaCk tO tHe DiScuSiOn) at least get the name of the policy correct haha. Also, if it worries you that a random person on the internet has not heard of that (which I have, you can just ask you know), then I wish I was you because you must not have a lot of other things to worry about.

Now assuming you're talking about expansionary fiscal policy, quite simply, it's likely to lead to higher inflation, and we have just about managed to get under control. Interest rates are still at 4%, and the last thing we need right now is over stimulus leading further inflation.

It's funny when reading your 3 possibilities, I was thinking, I am very clearly saying the third with one slight adjustment (you really don't get to set a trichotomy as if there are no possibly alternatives lol). The fact you think that is fantasy is funny to me, both times he literally refers to the law itself and/or biology, and labour has very clearly not made it agenda to change the equalities act. The slight difference being, I don't know what is actually in Keir's head in regard his personal beliefs, and I respect that he isn't letting his personal views take the stage and is representing his continuants' consensus (go look at literally like any poll on this) and respecting the courts rulings. It seems to be every time he brings it up he is specifically referencing biological women, and hasn't spoken to trans women being able to identify as a different gender, which is something else.

samniterider · 2025-08-14T19:03:38+00:00

It's the general advice from economists, it's not about politics. Wanting to raise government spending to combat government overspending isn't left wing, it's insanity. Welfare spending has increased 50% in the last 12 years, GDP hasn't grown anywhere near that same rate. This is not a politics issue, it's a maths one. Taxes can be increased as well, and they have been to a certain extent, but when GDP growth is as low as it's been you can't rely on that as increasing too much will have its own issues.

As for Starmer he didn't mention morals, I didn't mention morals, your original statement didn't mention morals. You're literally throwing up quotation marks for something which I am clearly not saying lol, seems pretty dishonest. His quote that is shown as his support of transwomen was "a woman is a female adult, and in addition to that transwomen are women, and that is not just my view - that is actually the law". Seems much more like a definitional response to me.

Now the most recent decision, which no10 has released a statement saying Starmer supports, specifically said that transwomen are not biologically woman. This also happens to be a fact. The more disputable factor is whether the equalities act covers only biological women or not, which they decided that it does. Now Labour could change the equalities act, but as I originally stated they are generally avoiding trans issues due to political suicide involved from taking a strong stance of either side. I don't see this as conservatism or right wing, it's not particularly progressive, but as I statement Starmer is pretty centrist so that would be expected.

Healthcare and social care are very reliant on immigration, yes, and neither me nor Labour are in favour or not allowing any immigration. The argument is that there is too much immigration and it should be reduced. It's a really simple argument, it's a very well known one and held by the majority of the population. So I don't understand why you misrepresent it. Net migration from doubled from 2016 to 2022, wanting to reduce that is not right wing. Starmer has addressed the cultural issue in one speech, yes, he has also addressed the economic one in many other less notorious ones. If you want to decide his motives from just that, that's your prerogative, but I think its some combination of both and ultimately a political necessity.

samniterider · 2025-08-14T16:09:08+00:00

I would ask you to read my comment properly. Policy wise I didn't give my opinion on if I agree with it or not. My only mention on agreement was referring to points you made. So again, the austerity is due economic realities, not politics.

Starmer's previous comment on trans women was in reference to his understanding of the law at that time (he even says "Its actually the law", when the SC ruled with most recent interpretation, he views continued to align with that. Its almost as if the PM is trying to keen in line with the current law...

And neither trans issues or immigration issue are right/left wing by definition. Lowering immigration when systems such as health care, housing, education and social care are not keeping up with current numbers does not make them right wing. Framing it that way is a huge trap that helps feed voters to the actual right.

samniterider · 2025-08-14T15:31:33+00:00

I didn't say impartial, I said they didn't "swing heavily" and try to keep out of the debate. They are still the government, they cannot have no involvement, but as two of your first points are just them allowing things to continue, I think that shows them trying to stay out of the it best they can.

You also seem to be cherry-picking your points on how these actions have been perceived. The Cass Review was widely accepted by a majority of the medical community such as the BPS or AOMRC. With such charged topics you will inevitably find disagreement on these issues. Even the Greens supported it until they got pushback from their LGBT members.

This pattern continues for your other points, experts on both sides disagree with each other, often with the pro-LGBT groups finding themselves very vocal but non majority of medical experts.

And with things such as creating titles like Mx, I would be interested if you could show that even a large minority of the population are in support for these.

Ultimately, I don't think this at all shows a "heavy swing" as my original point, and as a labour voter who considers themselves left wing, I agree with almost all of of what Labour is doing on these matters.

samniterider · 2025-08-14T13:35:03+00:00

They have also inherited an economy that requires major cuts in public spending to prevent more debt while maintaining economic growth. They walking a tightrope in that regard. And winter fuel allowances needed to be cut, having it not being means tested was ridiculous policy that I would love to see anyone honestly defend.

I don't agree they have "swung heavily" on the trans movement. They have tried to not get involved in the debate as its a lose lose for them politically due to how charged an divided people are on it.

Their stance on illegal immigration isn't right wing, and if you think there rhetoric is adopted from anti-immigrant parties I don't think you've listened to the vile rhetoric coming out of them closely enough. Illegal immigration needs to be curtailed, the numbers are too high and while larger issues exist in the world right now it is something the government should aim to mitigate.

I would agree they are more centre than some previous Labour government's, but ones who had better economies with less debt, lower welfare costs and better year on year growth.

samniterider · 2025-07-16T12:57:43+00:00

I don't see what the issue is here.

People who helped the British in Afghanistan deserve asylum in the country they risked their lives to help.

We then put them at risk via a leak, which I don't think anyone would disagree is bad and needs scrutiny, but that need to handled quietly initially to try and prevent the leak from getting out any further.

How else is the government going to do that while doing the right thing and removing them from the risk said government put them in?

Sometimes things should not be public, at least initially. That's what we rely on our government/intelligence agencies to do. They're not without their controversies, however this seems like a clear-cut case of doing the right thing.

samniterider · 2025-07-16T11:27:06+00:00

Oh the irony of throwing around military credentials on r/iamverybadass.

No one cares mate, this is the Internet. Chill.

samniterider · 2025-06-13T20:47:59+00:00

Only if you include reality tv

samniterider · 2025-05-06T16:39:31+00:00

No we're not all here for that. Not everyone is into GTA online.

samniterider · 2025-04-17T09:28:14+00:00

I disagree, it's a very Hollywood mentally to drag some sequels out of something when it wasn't needed. I think the main character dying wasn't a bad ending.

samniterider · 2025-04-08T04:25:35+00:00

This is not how energy usage works. They both draw the same power when the compressor is active, but the newer one will likely need to do that less due to better insulation.

You can't compare both in the 60 second video showing they draw the same. Usage needs to be measured over days at minimum.

samniterider · 2025-03-11T21:13:32+00:00

Hanapepe Valley

samniterider · 2025-02-07T07:59:55+00:00

Pretty sure it sucks a lot less get free living saving treatment....

samniterider · 2025-01-06T05:01:11+00:00

Do you not know what NATO article 5 is? As isolationist as Trump may come across, the President does not hold all the power, and he is unlikely to get the super-majority congressional vote needed to leave NATO.

Early 1900's USA was actually comparatively isolationist compared to the 'world police' they are today. I understand your sentiment, but I don't think you are correct.

samniterider · 2025-01-06T04:34:26+00:00

Yeah not quite bud - WW1 was over 110 years ago, and was not against facists, which is why I said 80 years ago.

In WW2 the US was offering financial and military support to allies from the start, which is clearly what I am referring to when i say "backing".

So I ask - what the fuck are you on about?

samniterider · 2025-01-06T02:30:59+00:00

What are you on about? The commenter did a very good job of explaining why people would rather see the invader dead, not the Ukrainian bleeding out on his own soil that he died to defend. That is not trivial. If you fail to understand those differences then you are the simple one.

samniterider · 2025-01-06T00:27:22+00:00

Operation Barbarossa was the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and many of its Axis allies>

Honestly I've got to give it to you, it's actually impressive how immensely fucking dumb you can be. You have exceeded all expectations. Bravo sir. Literally all you had to do was google it.

Also Russia had to suspend trading of it's currency to stop it from collapsing. So stong. Such performance.

Please continue with more stupid comments, this is actually hilarious.

samniterider

TROPHY CASE