**** Elections thread *****

[OngBonga]

People tend to buy eighths and quarters, but some will buy an ounce a month. Also some people buy grams like idiots and end up spending £100+ more per ounce.

Despite what Ong says, growing weed isn't a difficult science to master.

It isn't difficult if you have the motivation and time. But it's not easy to get it right if you're investing five minutes a day.

After that, the next most difficult challenge is simulating sunlight

Is it? Buying a bulb, shade and ballast is more challenging than getting the nutrients and ph right? There are tons of additives that you can buy, some of them will help boost yield, while others are fleecing the gullible. It's a minefield of products.

Then there's the medium you're going to use. If you grow in soil, you don't need so many nutrients, but the roots get less oxygen, and you have the risk of bugs. If you grow in coco fibre, you have a neutral medium which holds a lot more oxygen, but the plant requires all the nutrients via another source. If you go full hydroponics, such as deep water culture, then we're getting into lab conditions and "science". You need to understand a lot more about how the plants respond to thermal and ph fluctuations, since there is no buffer between atmosphere and roots. If you can master hydroponics, then you'll get very good results, compared with solid-based media.

After that you have to know how to recognize when the plants need their light cycle changed

They can be triggered anytime. When you do it is based on how big you want your plants to be, and your time limitations.

Then you separate the males from the females

It's not easy to identify males before it's too late. That's why sometimes you'll buy cheap weed that has seeds in it. Someone didn't spot the dude in time.

Of course, you can buy feminised seeds ( more expensive), or grow clones from cuttings (more complicated).

Easy game.

Right, so that's it? What nutrients are you using? What additives? Any enzymes? What about pest control? How are you controlling the humidity and temperature? What about security? It might be legal now, but it's still valuable, and therefore there is a risk of being robbed. And then there's the risk of mould when it's drying out.

There is so much to take into account, that it's overwhelming for someone who only intends to invest half an hour a day.

Yes, nearly anyone can learn these processes, it's not rocket science. But it is science, and is not as simple as people seem to think.

Because it has such a short shelf-life...

Huh? Since when does it have a short shelf life? If it's dried and stored properly, it'll last indefinitely. It might "decay" from a high THC product to a high CBN product, but that isn't necessarily a problem, unless you specifically want a high THC product.

[BananaStand]

People tend to buy eighths and quarters,

Ha ha ha fuck you metric system!

It isn't difficult if you have the motivation and time. But it's not easy to get it right if you're investing five minutes a day.

It totally is.

Is it? Buying a bulb, shade and ballast is more challenging than getting the nutrients and ph right?

Yes

There are tons of additives that you can buy, some of them will help boost yield, while others are fleecing the gullible. It's a minefield of products.

So? Trying to "boost yield" beyond what can be produced by any quality brand soil, straight out of the bag, seems unnecessary. Why fuck with teh soil? Just boost yield by growing more plants.

Then there's the medium you're going to use. If you grow in soil, you don't need so many nutrients, but the roots get less oxygen, and you have the risk of bugs.

The plant still grows right? Sheesh man. It's not that complicated. The soil is sold in stores, already nutrient-ized. People grow all kinds of shit in that soil and don't sweat about oxygen content or bugs.

If you grow in coco fibre, you have a neutral medium which holds a lot more oxygen, but the plant requires all the nutrients via another source. If you go full hydroponics, such as deep water culture, then we're getting into lab conditions and "science". You need to understand a lot more about how the plants respond to thermal and ph fluctuations, since there is no buffer between atmosphere and roots. If you can master hydroponics, then you'll get very good results, compared with solid-based media.

None of this is really relevant if you're just trying to grow weed for personal use. If you're a business, growing for sale to a larger market, then I can see how maybe you might care about this stuff. Mass growing for sale is illegal, so generally speaking, your average pot head can grow his own shit without worrying one iota about any of this stuff. If you're mass growing for sale legally, well then you've got a shit-ton of competition from a black market, as well as burdensome government regulations and taxes. Price is going to be a problem for you. So cutting costs is the next logical step. And to do that, you probably stop giving a shit about your hydroponics apparatus, and just plant seeds in soil like normal people.

They can be triggered anytime. When you do it is based on how big you want your plants to be, and your time limitations.

So it's even easier than I originally stated. Great!

It's not easy to identify males before it's too late.

yes it is.

That's why sometimes you'll buy cheap weed that has seeds in it. Someone didn't spot the dude in time.

Huh? I was under the impression that male plants didn't have seeds. I thought that female plants used their THC to produce seeds, which is why seed-y weed is bad (less THC).

Of course, you can buy feminised seeds ( more expensive)

Fucking racket!!

, or grow clones from cuttings (more complicated).

False. Cut branch from plant, stick cut end of branch into soil. Water. Wait. Easy game. You can make it even easier if you use a little rooting hormone, which costs about 3 bucks and is probably available at 30 different stores within 50 miles of your location.

Right, so that's it? What nutrients are you using?

Dirt

What additives?

Water

Any enzymes?

No

What about pest control?

Grow inside and keep the door closed.

How are you controlling the humidity and temperature?

Same way I control humidity and temperature everywhere else in my life.

What about security? It might be legal now, but it's still valuable, and therefore there is a risk of being robbed.

Don't be fucking stupid. First rule of weed growing: DON'T TALK ABOUT WEED GROWING. Second rule of weed growing: DON'T TALK ABOUT WEED GROWING. If a would-be robber somehow knows that you have weed to be robbed, then you deserve whatever happens to you.

And then there's the risk of mould when it's drying out.

I think you mean mold. And no, it's not a risk.

There is so much to take into account, that it's overwhelming for someone who only intends to invest half an hour a day.

A half hour a day?? Jesus, what are you doing that takes that much time?? Are you one of those weirdos who reads to his plants?

Yes, nearly anyone can learn these processes, it's not rocket science. But it is science, and is not as simple as people seem to think.

It's actually simpler

Huh? Since when does it have a short shelf life? If it's dried and stored properly, it'll last indefinitely.

No it won't. It will get dry, and brittle, and shitty within like two weeks, usually less. Sure it will still get you high, but your lungs will hate you.

It might "decay" from a high THC product to a high CBN product, but that isn't necessarily a problem,

Sounds like a problem to me.

unless you specifically want a high THC product.

Who doesn't?

[Savy]

What you're doing there BS is growing some really shitty weed.

It's much faster & easier to make your own beer than it is to grow your own weed and yet we see almost no one make their own beer.

[OngBonga]

What you're doing there BS is growing some really shitty weed.

Yeah, anyone can grow weed. But not anyway can grow quality weed. If it's good enough for banana's personal stash, fair enough. If he's nailing it and it's high quality, fair enough. But the vast majority of people who invest five minutes a day are going to grow inferior quality weed to what can be bought at retailers.

That's why lots of people will grow once or twice, then decide it's not worth the hassle when better quality stuff is available legally and easily.

[Poopadoop]

ITT I learned the basics of growing weed.

[BananaStand]

ITT I learned the basics of growing weed.

Really? It's not substantially different than growing turnips, or beets, or whatever tasteless vegetables you Canadians like to eat.

Put soil in pot. Put seed in soil. Add water. Don't touch it. Easy game.

[surviva316]

I kinda got burnt on this conversation mid-post. The line-by-line quoting has proliferated to the point that I either have to skip around significantly, repeat myself over and again in the course of one post (what started to happen here, which is what vitiated me), or completely reformulate my thoughts into a cogent, organized thesis, which I really don't feel like doing with the discussion at hand.

Here is my half-completed, totally un-proofread, scattershot I wrote, for what very little is worth.

Illustrating a double standard, denouncing hypocrisy, and calling out 'manufactured' outrage is not the same thing as a "defense"

If I list a bunch of bad news w/r/t Trump from the last week, and you don't have a [scare quotes]defense[scare quotes] for him, then I propose that you agree that he had a shitty week. Pointing out that people are exaggerating the news--even if that's correct--does not mean the news was very very bad for him. Here's the thing: people on both sides of the aisle exaggerate and put spin and do all sorts of other things to every shred of news that comes out of Washington. It's not productive to view news through the lens of how much it differs from the most idiotic Republicans, the most idiotic Democrats, the most idiotic AnCaps, the most idiotic neonazis, the most idiotic communists or anyone else. Instead of wining about manufactured outrage, just tell me exactly how bad these news items are.

And this is without mentioning yet again that you are misapplying double standard left and right and up and down. A double standard only takes place when two different actions are equal in nature. It's not a double standard for a white guy to only get convicted of assault for kicking a guy in the nuts while a black guy gets convicted of murder for shooting someone in the chest. Pointing out that there was less outrage over Obama saying "Hillary didn't do it" than when Trump told the FBI Director to cease investigating a cabinet member is neither surprising nor meaningful.

I don't know. There are ZERO paragraphs of anything connecting Trump to Putin. And that investigation has been going on for over a year. Maybe Trump is a genius for closing this one out so fast!

You're comparing the length of time it takes to conduct both a counter-intelligence and criminal investigation of all conversations, financial transactions, and business relations between any of a dozen men and anyone associated with a large nation-state to the length of time it takes to read a 3-paragraph letter. One of those takes well over a year to conduct thoroughly; the other can be easily done in an exceedingly small fraction of a work day.

In any event, I really don't care what the official statement is in regards to why Comey was fired. Trump is the president, and he can hire and fire who he wants.

Running the DOJ is one of the POTUS' responsibilities, so you don't care how he does it. Shouldn't the very fact that it's his responsibility be the reason we hold him accountable for it?

If your'e going to impugn Trump for firing Comey for nefarious reasons, then cite some evidence. Or, if you just want to believe that Comey was fired for illegal, or even unethical reasons without a shred or inkling of proof, then fine, be stupid.

The public's opinion of how a politician is running government is not the court of law. You don't need a smoking gun to have "evidence." Circumstantial evidence is plenty for me to find it highly unreasonable to conclude that Trump fired Comey because of a letter he sent 6 months ago. I believe it far more likely that it was because of the escalation of the Russia investigation. This is supported by the president himself who bellyached about how big of a showboat Comey was about Russia.

(18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361)

"Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

You think Comey was concealing a crime?

Maybe. I'm not gonna get riled up though every time a politician says something fuzzy. I'm not even mad about Obama's statements regarding Hillary. What I am mad about is that the same people (e.g. YOU) who dismiss Obama's statements as innocuous are all running around with their hair on fire over Trump.

FTR, I'm not yet sure how much of a deal to make out of what Comey has said about Trump.

I will for the hundredth time point out that telling someone leading an investigation to stop the investigation is a bigger deal than saying to the public, "They didn't do it."

Seems that it's only a bombshell to Trump haters.

And, reportedly, to several allied intelligence agencies. I mean, anyone who gets upset about the POTUS divulging information they were told by a close ally in confidence to foreign adversaries who are endorsing an opposing faction in Syria must just have their panties in a wad about all of Trump's winning or something.

You're being a real dick here. Some news reports say that something was leaked. Other news reports, which are backed by NAMED SOURCES WHO WERE IN THE ROOM AT THE TIME, refute those news reports. Consumers of information have to choose which news sources to believe. On one hand, there are heavily biased media outlets with a clear agenda citing anonymous sources and speculation. On the other hand, are facts. Believe whatever you want.

People love to throw words like "facts" and "evidence" around however they'd like. Yes, the eye witness report of the very people accused of doing something wrong counts for something, but it's specious for EXCEEDINGLY OBVIOUS REASONS.

RT was the only media that was there, and while I wouldn't be surprised if you said you trust RT more than NYT, USAToday, WaPo, etc, I would love for you to put that in writing if that's the case.

Anyway, the point of the quoted bit was just to say, if you don't put any credence in widely reported stories based on anonymous sources, then that's pretty much end of discussion and we're wasting a bunch of words.

It was never in question whether the intelligence was shared. Everyone agrees that it was. Where there is disagreement is whether the information was sensitive and classified, and clearly it wasn't.

Wait wait wait, but I just got done arguing with you about "facts" and people being in the room versus people not in the room. If the debate isn't over what was said in the room, should I just go up and delete everything above?

Whether the information was classified (before Trump declassified it by divulging it) is not up to the opinion of the people in the room. It's up to US officials who seem to clearly be saying that it had the highest classification.

If Trump made a mistake, or a bad decision, so what? Fine, put a blemish on his scorecard. And if he accumulates too many blemishes for your taste, then don't vote form him. End of story. But you seem to be asserting A) That only an unblemished scorecard should ever be allowed to be president, unless it's a democrat, in which case, mistakes happen. And B) This was more than a mistake. You're saying that Trump was at least grossly negligent, and at worst a nefarious Russian conspirator.

Your reduction of conversations to airy terminology like "blemish" and "mistake" and "more than a mistake" does this conversation no favors. I think hiring, defending, and keeping on-board someone with the highest security clearances despite all the information was given to Trump is a huge fucking deal. I don't know how this reads on your "more than a mistake"-ometer, and I don't care.

I agree with your last statement. It is, at best, grossly negligent, and at worst indicative of Trump, in some way or another, being sympathetic to what Flynn was doing.

See, you're forming your opinion of Trump based entirely on speculation. You're saying that if it's PLAUSIBLE that something bad happened, then we have to assume the worst until he can disprove it. In America, people are innocent until proven guilty fuck face.

I think it's fair to point out when a story, at its very best, is bad, and at its worst is terrifying. If you're not enough of an adult to read that statement without thinking that means I'm ready to throw Trump in jail without trial, then it's going to be difficult to talk about such heavy matters with you.

Has it occurred to you that it really was just a joke? Do you really believe that all these people are keeping nefarious secrets like this and discussing it during a conversation they know is being taped? Has it occurred to you that a perfectly normal week can be spun into a 'nightmare' when simple topical humor is taken out of context and presented as evidence of an evil conspiracy?

It's not taken out of context because the entire context is provided in the transcript.

It is possible that McCarthy didn't fully have his wits about him (most likely speculating with limited evidence and least likely out-and-out joking), which is why this isn't smoking gun evidence of everything. But you have on tape, a republican leader swearing to god that Putin pays Trump and an even higher republican leader shushing everyone up and swearing them to secrecy on the matter.

It's also not clear to me that the people speaking know they're being taped and especially that they know that this tape would ever reach the public.

Whether or not what's happening?

Trump and/or his associates are or had been conspiring with a foreign adversary.

You still don't even know what those phone calls were about.

I'm going by what's reported.

Also, numerous officials other than Mr. Armitage have claimed that it IS entirely appropriate for campaign staff to have contacts with foreign entities and diplomats.

Source. Not being snarky, I'd be genuinely interested to get multiple viewpoints on the matter.

What "official line" are you citing?

Unfortunately I don't have this bookmarked and it's exceedingly difficult to think up search terms to find it again since things like "Russia," "Trump," "contacts," etc are absolutely buried in newer news.

I don't remember exactly how old this is, but I wanna say I remember the NY times disclosing multiple Russian contacts with at least before the inauguration.

Contacts between Russia and Trump's associates have been reported since at least the night before the inauguration, but the number of contacts keeps going up and up, building a circumstantial case and giving more credence to the on-going investigation.

NO butt-licker. You've got it all wrong. The conservative media isn't using a double standard, they are simply calling out the double standard held by the liberal media. They are denouncing the manufactured outrage against Trump.

I didn’t say conservative media is using a double standard because, as I’ve mentioned many times, a double standard fallacy couldn’t apply here since all the terms of comparison have been inherently different.

***

Everyone agrees that he shouldn't have said it. The disagreement comes in how strong the response should be. Obama took heat for his comments about HIllary, and he should have. He was wrong, and he shouldn't have done it. He had a "nightmare week" (if thats what you wanna call it). Then the world moved on. However, the double standard comes into play when Trump does something similar, but definitively less bad, and the liberal world WON'T move on after the 'nightmare week'. Instead, if you put on any major news network right now, I will be anything you'll have to wait less than 10 minutes before hearing the word "impeachment".


I don't even remember this incident. This is entirely new to me, and I watch a lot of FOX. So maybe it really wasn't as big a deal as you're pretending it is. These cable news outlets are on 24 hours a day. They have to fill that time with stuff. So if they end up splitting hairs over suit colors, so be it. Just change the channel if you don't like it. Fox obviously moved on from their suit-color outrage, yet the other side, after over a year, is still claiming, without an inkling of proof, that the election was stolen


Vague, elliptical, ambiguous, could easily be interpreted as "Get this done so it's not a distraction".


Fair enough. I agree. So....shouldn't his notes be enough to be a 'smoking gun' then? Courts have upheld FBI agents notes as evidence in the past. Certainly the director of the FBI carries extra credibility. So....that kinda proves Trump's innocence. If what Trump did was illegal, then Comey already has all the evidence he needs to prosecute. He's obligated, under the law, to report it IMMEDIATELY. See the actual laws I cited above. No report = No crime


Here's what Google says



Gross exaggeration.


WRONG!!! Pay attention shit-wit. The story was stone-walled by Rice's refusal to testify.


FALSE. Has Flynn been charged with any crime?


Why do I have to address it? You and the President disagree on what's a fireable offense. Take it up with him. Flynn was fired for lying to Pence. Obviously what Flynn does matters to Trump. I don't think Trump is convinced that Flynn's statements to the Russian Ambassador constitute wrongdoing. It's a really flimsy accusation for which there are still no charges.


The bolded part above is a hyperbolic exaggeration that you're embracing as fact because it fits your narrative. Here in real life, that didn't happen.


Typical liberal point-of-view. "If you're not entirely with us, you're entirely against us". It's that attitude that got Trump elected in the first place. Well played libtards.


First of all, the press isn't qualified to determine what should, and should not be redacted.


Exactly what classified information are you suggesting was shared? If I recall, the accusations against Flynn stem from pretty ambiguous statements regarding whether or not recent diplomatic sanctions would be reviewed or revised.

You make it sound like Flynn gave away launch codes or something. Jesus.[/QUOTE]

[OngBonga]

I stopped reading when you answered "yes" to the question "is buying a shade, bulb and ballast more challenging than getting nutrients and ph right?"

Since it's so easy for you, how do you adjust your ph? What kind of range are you looking to hit? What adjustment do you make if the leaves are yellow rather than green?

So? Trying to "boost yield" beyond what can be produced by any quality brand soil, straight out of the bag, seems unnecessary. Why fuck with teh soil? Just boost yield by growing more plants.

I'm weak, I kept reading.

I thought you were business minded. "Growing more plants" might be an effective way of boosting yield, but it's not the most efficient way of doing this. You should be seeking to boost yield per square metre.

The plant still grows right? Sheesh man. It's not that complicated. The soil is sold in stores, already nutrient-ized. People grow all kinds of shit in that soil and don't sweat about oxygen content or bugs.

You're growing inferior quality bud compared to hydroponics growers. If you're happy to smoke it, fair enough, but I probably wouldn't smoke it out of preference.

None of this is really relevant if you're just trying to grow weed for personal use.

Yeah, fair enough. However, if you prefer to smoke weed that blows your head off, you're gonna need to do better than throwing water into soil.

yes it is.

Depends on the strain. Also depends if you know what to look for. It takes experience. I'm not sure I could do it, because when I grew weed it was from cuttings, so they're clones of a known female.

Huh? I was under the impression that male plants didn't have seeds. I thought that female plants used their THC to produce seeds, which is why seed-y weed is bad (less THC).

Male plants don't have seeds, they pollenate the females which do produce seeds. This is most definitely undesireable. I dunno if the THC is used to produce seeds, but certainly bud from pollenated females is very much inferior.

False. Cut branch from plant, stick cut end of branch into soil. Water. Wait. Easy game. You can make it even easier if you use a little rooting hormone, which costs about 3 bucks and is probably available at 30 different stores within 50 miles of your location.

No mention of a propogator, seperate growing tent with weaker light, higher humidity etc? I'll be surprised if you're hitting five ounces per square metre, and I'll be further surprised if you're getting nice fat buds.

Grow inside and keep the door closed.

Yeah good luck with that. When you're smoking it, do you ever hear popping? That's spider mites exploding.

Don't be fucking stupid. First rule of weed growing: DON'T TALK ABOUT WEED GROWING. Second rule of weed growing: DON'T TALK ABOUT WEED GROWING. If a would-be robber somehow knows that you have weed to be robbed, then you deserve whatever happens to you.

Right, you have the basics in security by not talking. Well done. Now adapt to the modern age. You need to make sure you have no obvious heat signature, because in today's world, especially if you're in a built up area, gangs are flying drones with infrared cameras to spot potential grows. So any ventilated air needs to be cool enough to not cause the exit vent to glow up more than your neighbours. Or better still, you need to be in the middle of nowhere.

I think you mean mold. And no, it's not a risk.

No, we created the language. It's mould, you guys get it wrong. And yes, it's a risk, assuming you're not in control of humidity. Perhaps you live in a desert, in which case, fair enough, mould isn't a risk, assuming you have at least basic ventilation.

A half hour a day?? Jesus, what are you doing that takes that much time?? Are you one of those weirdos who reads to his plants?

I had the radio on so they had music.

I wasn't growing from soil, so I had to make up a nutrient solution, adjust the ph, and feed it to them. I would also remove any dead or dying leaves, sometimes cut off lower branches that won't produce anything. I'd also prepare more water... it takes a couple of days for chlorine to clear from tap water, so I'd have a couple of tanks with air stones in to oxygenate the water. This needs rotation and topping up. All in all, I was doing well if I was in and out in under an hour. Still, better than grinding ten hours doing somethign I hate doing.

It's actually simpler

I really do expect your weed to be shit.

No it won't. It will get dry, and brittle, and shitty within like two weeks, usually less. Sure it will still get you high, but your lungs will hate you.

Cure it properly, and this doesn't happen. Quite the opposite. Weed that has been properly cured will taste better after a month, two months, sometimes six months. Depends on the strain and how quickly the THC breaks down to CBN, depends on temperature and humidity, and oxygen.

Sounds like a problem to me.

Not at all. CBN is where it's at when it comes to the medicinal side of things. Some people want a smoke that will get them mildly high while stopping their knees from aching. Other people just want to be blazed. I'm in the latter group, so I prefer high THC products, but high CBN products still have enough THC to get me high.

Who doesn't?

My mate who has MS.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I thought you were business minded. "Growing more plants" might be an effective way of boosting yield, but it's not the most efficient way of doing this. You should be seeking to boost yield per square metre.

*ahem*
cubic meter
Not that it's correct. You want to boost income $$ per capital investment $$.
That's not necessarily a "more yield at same style infrastructure = +EV."


Outdoor plants get the benefit of a huge sky, with power per square meter of sky higher than you can reasonably get indoors. Plus it's free.

Hydro in a greenhouse?I
Is that a thing? Seems to get the best of both worlds.

[BananaStand]

I stopped reading when you answered "yes" to the question "is buying a shade, bulb and ballast more challenging than getting nutrients and ph right?"

That's unfortunate. You're only robbing yourself of useful information. Soil comes in a bag, already nutrient-ized and ph balanced. Lights you have to buy bubs, fixtures, you have to plug them in, etc. Much much more complicated.

Since it's so easy for you, how do you adjust your ph?

I don't. I start with the right ph cause I'm so fucking smart.

What kind of range are you looking to hit?

The good one.

What adjustment do you make if the leaves are yellow rather than green?

This is a trick question. Discoloration could be for lots of reasons, not just ph. But in most cases, just let it keep growing. If it sucks, start over.

I'm weak, I kept reading.

Good, I hope you learned something

I thought you were business minded

Right. Which means that I care about more than just having the tippy-top quality product. If I can have a product that's 90% as good as the best, but takes about 50% less time and resources....that's a business-minded win.

"Growing more plants" might be an effective way of boosting yield, but it's not the most efficient way of doing this. You should be seeking to boost yield per square metre.

If one square meter doesn't produce enough weed for me to smoke, I'll just plant two square meters. Don't get all uptight about some contrived and arbitrary industry metric.

Besides, I'm pretty sure you're just talking out your ass here. I'm not about to believe that potheads are perfectionists.

You're growing inferior quality bud compared to hydroponics growers. If you're happy to smoke it, fair enough, but I probably wouldn't smoke it out of preference.

Inferior is such a loaded word. If we're talking about market capitalization, then Burger King is inferior to McDonalds. Burger King is still a really really huge company and the Whopper is still a kick-ass sandwich. Splitting hairs over which is better seems like something only an obese degenerate with too much time on his hands would do. A real beef connoisseur wouldn't get his meat at either place though. He'd migrate to the much higher quality burgers offered by butchers and non-fast-food restaurants.

In pot terms, even if I did stipulate that my stuff was 'inferior' to the hydro stuff, it's still gonna get you fucking high. High enough that you wouldn't' really care about an incremental improvement. Only a degenerate pot-head who's reached an abrupt dead end in life would be splitting hairs over incremental improvements in their pot-high. Someone who really wants to get high would just move on to a harder drug.

Yeah, fair enough. However, if you prefer to smoke weed that blows your head off, you're gonna need to do better than throwing water into soil

Or....here's an idea. Maybe just don't smoke for a day or two, then go back to it. Head blown!

Depends on the strain

Meh, not really

Also depends if you know what to look for.

Pick up your phone and say "OK GOOGLE, how do I tell the difference between male and female marijuana plants". Or if you're an iPhone user, ask Siri. Problem solved

It takes experience.

No, it takes a 3 second web search

I'm not sure I could do it,

You should cut back your smoking then. Clearly it's having undesirable side-effects.

because when I grew weed it was from cuttings, so they're clones of a known female.

"known"? How would you know?

I dunno if the THC is used to produce seeds, but certainly bud from pollenated females is very much inferior.

It's because all the THC is in the seeds. See, you learned something!

No mention of a propogator,

What the fuck for?

seperate growing tent

Jesus you just love overhead huh?

with weaker light, higher humidity etc?

Why so it will grow slower?

I'll be surprised if you're hitting five 0.46 ounces per square metre foot,

Fixed your post

and I'll be further surprised if you're getting nice fat buds

Who cares. It's all ash and vapor in the end anyway.

Yeah good luck with that. When you're smoking it, do you ever hear popping?

No, never.

That's spider mites exploding.

Jesus man, I thought you lived in Jolly old England? Now you're talking like your pot farm is deep in a Peruvian rainforest. If you have a problem with spiders, take it up with your landlord.

Right, you have the basics in security by not talking. Well done.

Done and done.

Now adapt to the modern age

Don't need to.

You need to make sure you have no obvious heat signature, because in today's world, especially if you're in a built up area, gangs are flying drones with infrared cameras to spot potential grows.

Or....you could just move. Honestly, if there is this kind of drug gang activity in your area, you should probably stay the fuck out of the drug business.

No, we created the language. It's mould, you guys get it wrong

Fuck your sister in the eye!! The word clearly contains a short 'o' vowel sound. Phonetically, a single "o" is all that's necessary. Silent letters are fucking dumb.

And yes, it's a risk, assuming you're not in control of humidity. Perhaps you live in a desert, in which case, fair enough, mould isn't a risk, assuming you have at least basic ventilation.

How about you just try living somewhere that where it doesn't rain 300 days a year.

I had the radio on so they had music.

Pot plants like high-volume Ann Murray songs. Enjoy your life.

I wasn't growing from soil, so I had to make up a nutrient solution, adjust the ph, and feed it to them

Dude, soil is like 4 bucks and it's carried by almost any store you can name.

I would also remove any dead or dying leaves, sometimes cut off lower branches that won't produce anything.

That's called gardening, and it takes like 9 seconds. What are you spending the other 29 minutes 51 seconds doing?

I'd also prepare more water... it takes a couple of days for chlorine to clear from tap water, so I'd have a couple of tanks with air stones in to oxygenate the water. This needs rotation and topping up.

I'll be generous and give you a full two minutes for this. You still have nearly 28 minutes left.

All in all, I was doing well if I was in and out in under an hour.

Surely this includes some very liberal smoke breaks.

I really do expect your weed to be shit.

Correction, it's "the shit"

Cure it properly, and this doesn't happen.

Yes it does

[OngBonga]

cubic meter

Sort of. I mean yeah, technically, you're right. But height only does so much. I worked on the basis of floorspace in square metres, and considered height as a seperate issue. Generally, taller plants are better, but they take longer to vegetate. The bud is concentrated near the top, so much of the height is wasted. Some methods (sea of green, for example), produce outstanding results from very short plants. So I only used cubic metres as a unit of measurement when it comes to extraction, not when it comes to plant space and yield. Time limits, height limits and growing method determine height, while floor space efficiency is all about care. They should be consiered separately.

[OngBonga]

Outdoor plants get the benefit of a huge sky, with power per square meter of sky higher than you can reasonably get indoors. Plus it's free.

Outdoor plants also benefit from the light strength being near identical at the top of the plant compared to the bottom. Indoor plants do not have this luxury, so the bottom of the plant is gettijng a lot less light than the top. You'll understand the physics behind this, inverse square law... the sun is millions of miles away which means the light is only a fraction weaker a metre further away. An indoor bulb will be perhaps two metres off the ground, so the height of the plant is suddenly a large percentage of the distance the light needs to travel. The light is four times as strong 10 centimeters away than it is 20 centimetres away. Therefore, indoor plants perform very well at the top of the plant, and very poorly lower down.

Outdoor growing has greater pest problems though, plus you need the climate, which we don't have. I guess we could do it in a greenhouse with hydro, but it's not very subtle. America benefits from being huge. It's not going to be easy to hide a greenhouse full of weed in England.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Wait... who looks at a greenhouse and thinks, "Now that's suspicious?"
Do you have patrolling greenhouse inspectors over there or something?

Did you build your greenhouse on or adjacent to your neighbor's property / in a place where children are frolicking about, like a neighborhood?



I feel pretty confident that, while America is bigger than Great Britain, there are still acres of undeveloped forested land available for purchase at a reasonable price.

[OngBonga]

Wait... who looks at a greenhouse and thinks, "Now that's suspicious?"
Do you have patrolling greenhouse inspectors over there or something?

Did you build your greenhouse on or adjacent to your neighbor's property / in a place where children are frolicking about, like a neighborhood?



I feel pretty confident that, while America is bigger than Great Britain, there are still acres of undeveloped forested land available for purchase at a reasonable price.

It's really not that simple. When I was growing, I was out in the countryside. The property I was at was certainly not big enough to hide a greenhouse, but even if it was it wouldn't be practical. Our country just isn't very big. The military tend to use countryside airspace for their training. I regularly saw jets flying over the region, and once a chinook flew so low over the house that the dog tried to chase it off. I made eye contact with the soldiers sitting on the side, like it was a scene from a fucking film.

Weed plants look like weed plants. They don't really look like tomato or carrot plants, or whatever people usually grow in greenhouses. I wouldn't want my crop exposed to the sky, not unless it was just a couple of personal plants anyway.

It's just so much easier to hide a crop if it's indoors.

Or just do what cheech and chong did. Empty your swimming pool, and stretch a canopy of light blue fabric over the top so that it still looks like a pool of water from the air.

But under the fabric....ganja town

Great idea.

Wait, I don't have a swimming pool.

[Poopadoop]

Great idea.

Wait, I don't have a swimming pool.

This reminds me your idea to evaporate yourself to coolness. Warm weather coming up, have you got your tub of water ready?

[MadMojoMonkey]

This reminds me your idea to evaporate yourself to coolness.

[BananaStand]

Or just do what cheech and chong did. Empty your swimming pool, and stretch a canopy of light blue fabric over the top so that it still looks like a pool of water from the air.

But under the fabric....ganja town

[OngBonga]

I don't. I start with the right ph cause I'm so fucking smart.

I wouldn't say smart. I'd just say unmotivated by quality. Soil is inferior to hydropnoics, however it's much easier for reasons you state... no fucking about with ph and nutrient levels.

Besides, I'm pretty sure you're just talking out your ass here. I'm not about to believe that potheads are perfectionists.

lol we are when it comes to weed quality.

Inferior is such a loaded word. If we're talking about market capitalization, then Burger King is inferior to McDonalds. Burger King is still a really really huge company and the Whopper is still a kick-ass sandwich. Splitting hairs over which is better seems like something only an obese degenerate with too much time on his hands would do. A real beef connoisseur wouldn't get his meat at either place though. He'd migrate to the much higher quality burgers offered by butchers and non-fast-food restaurants.

Interesting. Apart from being wrong about Maccies being better than Buger King, you hit an interesting point here.

A real beef connoisseur wouldn't get his meat at either place though.

Here you acknowledge that there is a taxable market for weed post-leagalisation. You might not be a weed connoisseur, but I am. 90% quality is not good enough for me, given a choice. So if my weed is 90% but I can get 99% by spending £20, I'll probably just spend the money and not bother with the hassle.

Because I was a perfectionist when I was growing, my weed was quality. Most stoners though will either settle for soil plants, and with it inferior quality, or buy quality products from other good growers. A few though will actually enjoy the science aspect of growing, and embrace it.

In pot terms, even if I did stipulate that my stuff was 'inferior' to the hydro stuff, it's still gonna get you fucking high. High enough that you wouldn't' really care about an incremental improvement.

The improvement that matters when we already have a nice high is taste, and you're certainly missing a trick there because you're not curing it. Plus you're still feeding them nutrients right until you chop them down, since you're growing in soil. Therefore, there will be nutrients in the smoke, affecting quality. Hydro growers flush their product for a week before chopping, which means just water to flush out the nutrients. This improves taste a great deal. Then it's cured, improving taste better.

That what weed connisseurs give a fuck about, not incremental increases in how stoned we get.

"known"? How would you know?

Is this question even serious? Generally, I would take cuttings from a mother plant. I know the mother is female after one successful crop, but I already had supreme confidence before flowering the first cuttings because the mother itself would've come from a cutting I obtained from a grower friend who could only give me a male "mother" if he was being a cunt.

If you didn't know, taking a clone means creating a genetic copy... so if the mother is female, so are all the cuttings.

Jesus man, I thought you lived in Jolly old England? Now you're talking like your pot farm is deep in a Peruvian rainforest. If you have a problem with spiders, take it up with your landlord.

haha itt a weed grower thinks spider mites are spiders. Holy fuck how do you avoid infestation?

Fuk yor sister in the eye!! The word clearly contains a short 'o' vowl sound. Fonetically, a single "o" is all that's necessary. Silent letters are fuking dum.

Fixed your post.

Pot plants like high-volume Ann Murray songs. Enjoy your life.

Mine had a diet of Future Sound Of London. Gonna listen to Ann Murray while I continue responding to your baiting.

Dude, soil is like 4 bucks and it's carried by almost any store you can name.

It's also inferior.

Ann Murray lasted four seconds. Jesus wept.

Surely this includes some very liberal smoke breaks.

Exactly. Plus a cup of tea. I'm in no hurry about things. Still, that's how I want to work. Slowly, with my entire day's work done in under an hour. All this talk about growing has really made me want to do it again. Kinda hope Lib Dems win. A disaster in every way possible except I'd be able to grow weed.

Yes it does

No, it doesn't. If you're curing it and it tatses like crap after a month, you're doing it wrong. Make sure it's dry, then put it in a jar with a little air at the top. Open it daily, mix it about, replace the air, close it. After a week or so of this, keep the jar closed for a month.

You're welcome.

[BananaStand]

Ann Murray lasted four seconds. Jesus wept.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Enjoy having that shit stuck in your head for the next week.

[OngBonga]

Ha ha ha ha ha. Enjoy having that shit stuck in your head for the next week.

Nah I need to really know a song before that happens. I'm more likely to remember something equally as awful, for example the Carpenters, and get one of their songs stuck in my head.

Nope, I'm trying, but I think I've finally forgotten all their songs. Outstanding.

[OngBonga]

I've got better plans for this weekend of nice weather. It's my regular music festival, we keep getting good weather.

But yeah I anticipate incoming computer problems again. Gonna get a houseplant with big leaves, lots of surface area.

[Savy]

Gonna get a houseplant with big leaves, lots of surface area.

Should you be admitting that on the internet?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I've got better plans for this weekend of nice weather. It's my regular music festival, we keep getting good weather.

But yeah I anticipate incoming computer problems again. Gonna get a houseplant with big leaves, lots of surface area.

I'm not sure what this will accomplish aside from adding a source of more humidity in the room.

Adding anything into the room, which is wholly contained in the room, cannot have a long-term affect on the temperature of the room. If it isn't transporting thermal energy from inside the space to outside the space, then it's not changing the temperature.

EDIT: If you put a bucket of ice in the room, by having transported low thermal energy material into the room, this will have a temporary cooling effect, but no long-term effect.

DOUBLE EDIT: Damn... if you add a radioactive heat source with a long half-life, then I concede that it could have a "long-term" effect on the time scales I was implicitly talking about.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not sure what this will accomplish aside from adding a source of more humidity in the room.

Ya I don't know where the cooling houseplant idea came from. Next he will be getting some kind of animal - a penguin maybe?

[OngBonga]

Yeah that isn't code for "16 cannabis plants" or anything.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah that isn't code for "16 cannabis plants" or anything.

I thought it was hilarious when I was a teen reading HHGG in the scene in one of the later books, the team finds themselves in some spaceship run on the bistromathic drive. In the book, it says there was a "pot plant" in the corner. I guessed that it meant a "potted" plant and not a "pot" plant, but didn't know this was common usage in Britain.

So if you told me you had a pot plant in your office, I wouldn't necessarily think you meant a marijuana plant, so long as I believe you're British.

[Poopadoop]

I repeat my advice to Ong to buy (or make) a bag of ice and put it in front of a fan blowing on your face. At least you'll feel cooler and it can't hurt the temp. of the room.

[OngBonga]

Humidity isn't the problem, it's temperature. If humidity is increasing, temperature is decreasing thanks to transvaporation. Greater surface area means greater transvaporation.

As for removing the energy from the room, it's not so much of an issue, assuming the room is warmer when I'm using it than not (computer on, my body heat, seem likely). Evaporation will increase when the room is in use, then when I turn the comp off, condensation will begin to happen. This is where energy is returned to the atmosphere in the form of heat... when I'm not using it.

Plants are excellent at regulating temperature.

[Poopadoop]

Plants are excellent at regulating temperature.

According to who?

I never heard of someone saying 'i wish we could afford a/c' and their spouse saying 'don't worry honey, we'll just get a banana plant'.

[Poopadoop]

Also, would it not work better if you just doused yourself with water every half hour and let it evaporate off your skin? Isn't that how sweating works?

[OngBonga]

Also, would it not work better if you just doused yourself with water every half hour and let it evaporate off your skin? Isn't that how sweating works?

This sounds less appealing than sitting next to a plant.

According to who?

idk, science?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/LAI/LAI2.php

Plants also cool the landscape directly through the process known as transpiration. When the surrounding atmosphere heats up, plants will often release excess water into the air from their leaves. By releasing evaporated water, plants cool themselves and the surrounding environment.

^ that's how sweating works. Get hot, release water, it evaporates, it cools. Of course, just like sweating, it also has no effect if relative humidity is 100%, because the air is saturated and no more evaporation can take place.

But the temperature and humidity will regulate themselves. As the air cools, relative humidity rises, condensation happens, energy is released in the form of heat, air warms up, relative humidity falls, evaporation happens, air cools... and with this cycle is thermal regulation.

So long as I don't have a constant relative humidity of 90% or more, it'll cool the room while it's being used, at least a little bit. More than an a/c unit? Probably not, but it's cheaper, nicer, and might be enough.

[Poopadoop]

This sounds less appealing than sitting next to a plant.



idk, science?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/LAI/LAI2.php



^ that's how sweating works. Get hot, release water, it evaporates, it cools. Of course, just like sweating, it also has no effect if relative humidity is 100%, because the air is saturated and no more evaporation can take place.

But the temperature and humidity will regulate themselves. As the air cools, relative humidity rises, condensation happens, energy is released in the form of heat, air warms up, relative humidity falls, evaporation happens, air cools... and with this cycle is thermal regulation.

So long as I don't have a constant relative humidity of 90% or more, it'll cool the room while it's being used, at least a little bit. More than an a/c unit? Probably not, but it's cheaper, nicer, and might be enough.

The plant is going to cool itself and maybe the surrounding 1cm of space. So unless you get a vine and let it grow around and on you while you sit at your computer, you're not going to benefit from this mad plan to cool yourself with vegetation.

Also there's a nonzero chance you end up smoking the plant, whatever it is, and that would raise the temperature even more.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I cannot support candidate ong, given his willy-nilly nonchalance when it comes to conservation of energy.

This is the election thread, right?

[Savy]

I cannot support candidate ong, given his willy-nilly nonchalance when it comes to conservation of energy.

This is the election thread, right?

Campaigning has been suspended due to the horrific terrorist act, will be back up again later this week.

[BananaStand]

I gotta say, it seems pretty dubious for May to be making a public spectacle over her decision to stop sharing information with Trump. Apparently she doesn't like the fact that intelligence shared was leaked to the US media.

Is this bitch serious????

The guy's been in office for four months now and a week has not gone by where enemies in the deep state have not leaked something sensitive to the press.

Seems like May is the fool for saying anything to Trump in the first place. How did she not expect it to get leaked?

That's like walking up to someone with advanced Parkinsons disease and saying "Here, will you please hold my premature hemophiliac baby"

[OngBonga]

I think the best explanation is that May is a fucking idiot and is completely out of her depth.

The plant is going to cool itself and maybe the surrounding 1cm of space.

Which, in turn, cools the next 1cm (cubed) of space.

It takes energy for a molecule to change from liquid to vapour. That energy is exchanged in the form of heat from atmosphere to molecule. That heat isn't returned until the molecule condenses again.

The effect might be negligible, but it's worth a shot. I mean, it's cheaper than new computer or a/c unit.

Also there's a nonzero chance you end up smoking the plant, whatever it is, and that would raise the temperature even more.

This is possible.

[OngBonga]

How are we talking about the evaporation cycle in two different threads?

[Savy]

Thought Ong might be posting about the party leaders being on tv last night, nope still plants.

[OngBonga]

I'm trying really hard to not give a fuck about politics.

[Savy]

I'm trying really hard to not give a fuck about politics.

ITS TOMORROW WOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

[OngBonga]

I'm getting up at 5am and fucking off to the seaside.

Fuck. This. Shit.

[Savy]

I'm getting up at 5am and fucking off to the seaside.

Fuck. This. Shit.

I was actually getting a bit excited at the thought of the tories losing some seats but they'll make slight gains. May coming out with the internet getting restrictions, spying on everyone and getting rid of human rights. Pretty awful stuff.

[wufwugy]

Do any of you see an issue of Islamism in the UK?

[Savy]

Do any of you see an issue of Islamism in the UK?

What makes something an issue?

The question you're asking gets a no.

[wufwugy]

Just wanna know what you make of it is all.

[Savy]

Just wanna know what you make of it is all.

It's up there with worrying about getting hit by lightning.

Lots of issues with things like integration amongst communities of which we could address on their own merits but unfortunately this doesn't happen. Even worse it gets lumped in with things like terrorism and becomes incredibly counter-productive.

[wufwugy]

It's up there with worrying about getting hit by lightning.

Nassim Taleb has likened this to thin tailed whereas terrorism is fat tailed.

Lots of issues with things like integration amongst communities of which we could address on their own merits but unfortunately this doesn't happen. Even worse it gets lumped in with things like terrorism and becomes incredibly counter-productive.

Good point. A reason I see for why they're likened is that one begets the other, as well as one is culturally transformative.

[Savy]

Good point. A reason I see for why they're likened is that one begets the other, as well as one is culturally transformative.

The issue is a lot of our muslim communities aren't a new or recent thing. They have been around for generations and have never really been an issue in the sense that they are being touted as now. Now most of our immigration is from the EU and not muslim and doesn't create issues anywhere near on the level that terrorism gets talked about.

Solving those issues are real, relevant and help to kill the whole extremist ideology that exists which is funnily enough a minor benefit in comparison.

Nassim Taleb has likened this to thin tailed whereas terrorism is fat tailed.

Explain terminology please.

[wufwugy]

The issue is a lot of our muslim communities aren't a new or recent thing. They have been around for generations and have never really been an issue in the sense that they are being touted as now.

Interesting. Why do you think they are a bigger deal now than before?

[oskar]

It's up there with worrying about getting hit by lightning.

Lots of issues with things like integration amongst communities of which we could address on their own merits but unfortunately this doesn't happen. Even worse it gets lumped in with things like terrorism and becomes incredibly counter-productive.

You might not worry much about lightning, but you're not going to go kiting in a thunderstorm either. Both are avoidable. What grinds my gears about this debate is that nobody on the left is willing to acknowledge that if you boot out all the muslims the chance of a terror attack approaches zero. Just that fact alone is so offensive you can't even say it. Once you are able to acknowledge that you can say: ok, we're obviously not deporting anyone based on faith or denying asylum from people that are being prosecuted, but now that we know where it's coming from we can talk about steps to solve the issue which could be anything from closing or generally disallowing religious schools of all kinds to making sure immigrant distribution is well thought out to avoid ghettos and aid immigration andworking closely with the mosques to make sure nothing funky is going on.

[Savy]

You might not worry much about lightning, but you're not going to go kiting in a thunderstorm either. Both are avoidable. What grinds my gears about this debate is that nobody on the left is willing to acknowledge that if you boot out all the muslims the chance of a terror attack approaches zero. Just that fact alone is so offensive you can't even say it. Once you are able to acknowledge that you can say: ok, we're obviously not deporting anyone based on faith or denying asylum from people that are being prosecuted, but now that we know where it's coming from we can talk about steps to solve the issue which could be anything from closing or generally disallowing religious schools of all kinds to making sure immigrant distribution is well thought out to avoid ghettos and aid immigration andworking closely with the mosques to make sure nothing funky is going on.

I don't believe the bolded statement to be true in any way close to what you're implying.

Getting rid of religious schools isn't happening any time soon.

The distribution of immigration isn't something that people have any choice in & I don't see how you would control it without some really mad level of government control which would be catastrophic.

The whole thing about working with mosques and what not has been pushed for years and basically just creates weird little groups where people are pushed way above their stations as some sort of community out reach.

[BananaStand]

I don't believe the bolded statement to be true in any way close to what you're implying.

Getting rid of religious schools isn't happening any time soon.

The distribution of immigration isn't something that people have any choice in & I don't see how you would control it without some really mad level of government control which would be catastrophic.

The whole thing about working with mosques and what not has been pushed for years and basically just creates weird little groups where people are pushed way above their stations as some sort of community out reach.

Pretty much this. It sounds like Oskar is saying that we can solve the problem of terrorism by simply changing the way we interact with Muslims and muslim countries.

That's nuts. The problem IS Islam.

Google "pew research" and "is it ok to bomb innocent civillians". You will see that terrorism, violence, religious war, and faith-motivated killing is a pervasive belief among an alarming percentage of the worldwide muslim population.

Here in western society, we've been duped into thinking that the 'western' version of a muslim, is representative of the 'average' muslim worldwide. That's simply incorrect. The westernized, peace-loving, non-violent muslims are very much in the minority. They just seem like the majority because they make up the majority of muslims that we know.

It also doesn't help that every time a Muslim does something bad in the name of Islam, the Muslim community immediately starts defending itself. They put the shame on YOU for even thinking that the offender in question represents even a slice of the greater muslim community. That's a deflecting tactic that should be frightening to anyone who doesn't want to get blown up.

[Savy]

Labour are definitely winning where I live, I'd vote for the guy anyway as he's the best option even if you disagree with labour nationally. No other party is remotely interesting to vote for & me voting for them won't be the difference between them getting their money back or not (i.e. the importance of choice) so I'll probably either not vote or spoil my ballot.

[OngBonga]

It's all bollocks. "Islamic" Terrorism is not religious, it's political. The goons blowing themselves up think it's religious, but those ordering the attacks, it's politics.

The recent three attacks in the UK, all leading up to an election, were Saudi state-sponsored attacks, designed to stregnthen public opinion for Theresa May and the Conservatives, who are selling, and will continue to sell, arms to the Saudis, which they either drop on Yemen, or sell on to ISIS. Labour will pull the pulg on these arms deals.

When ISIS claim an attack, you can interpret that as Saudi Arabi.

That Saudi Arabia are accusing Qatar of sponsoring terrorism and funding ISIS would be hilarious if it wasn't so fucking serious.

And yeah, savy nails it, I think most British people are as terrified by terrorism as they are lightning.

[oskar]

It's no secret that a large amount of isis funding comes from the UAE but the say "Saudi Arabia" does this or that is hopelessly blunt. It's like saying England plays football or Germany makes cars. SA by the nature of its wealth has a lot of unfathomably stupid people in very powerful positions but that doesn't mean it's a mad villains stronghold. I do not know much at all about sand country but the royal saudi family directly funding isis doesn't sound very credible to me.

[wufwugy]

On the topic of integration, for example of non-westernized Muslims becoming westernized, probably the way to get that is not having welfare such that they don't work. Work is what assimilates. Tons of different peoples have assimilated into countries not of their origin; what those who haven't seem to have in common is their host countries sponsor their dis-assimilation via welfare.

[Savy]

On the topic of integration, for example of non-westernized Muslims becoming westernized, probably the way to get that is not having welfare such that they don't work. Work is what assimilates. Tons of different peoples have assimilated into countries not of their origin; what those who haven't seem to have in common is their host countries sponsor their dis-assimilation via welfare.

What countries would they be?

[wufwugy]

What countries would they be?

In America, just about all immigrants from Europe and Asia have assimilated and are assimilating into the American nation. Jews, Irish, Italians, Greeks, Filipinos, Chinese, etc.. Welfare culture was not popular for most of the immigration of our country, though that is now changing and there are emerging some problems of assimilation due to welfare, though that's only regarding immigrants in a small way.

The issue is much bigger in Europe, where the welfare states are far more vast. Sweden, France, a few others, have very high numbers of immigrants without work, living in ghettos, and on welfare.

Interesting to note: I agree with economist Bryan Caplan about how we should have open borders. However, as he points out, in order to do so, we would need (1) to keep people out who should be in prison, and (2) not provide them enough welfare such that they don't work/assimilate. The interesting to note part is that I estimate this would result in even more stringent immigration standards. More people would immigrate even more for sure, but some would be different people and all (most all) would assimilate.

[wufwugy]

Though the book is bad news, people seem complex enough that they can worship a book without actually following the book. Even a religion oriented around a Jew-slaughtering child rapist can yield people who disagree with that behavior as long as they have skin in the game regarding assimilating into a culture that doesn't support that behavior.

[Savy]

Exit poll being right would make my month. Hilarious, absolute shit show.

[OngBonga]

Tory + DUP coalition? Nasty nasty. This will ened in tears.

[OngBonga]

It's funny, MSM were all over Jez during the election for his sympathies for the IRA.

Yet here we're about to have the Tories propped up by a party that was created as the political wing to loyalist terrorism. Loyalists (those in Northern Ireland who wish to remain in the UK) have killed over 1000 people. They shot someone during this very election campaign.

The media didn't even mention loyalist terrorism during the election, it was just IRA this and Islam that.

This is a disaster for the Tories, and unless this government collapses quickly, a disaster for the rest of us too.

[MadMojoMonkey]

this very election campaign.

It was, like, sooo election campaign. More than the average, compared to other things which aren't so very election campaign.



/troll

[Savy]

The media didn't even mention loyalist terrorism during the election, it was just IRA this and Islam that.

Queen loving terrorists aren't terrorists they are patriots.

[Luco]

After the disastrous campaign that May ran I'm surprised she didn't lose her bloody seat to Lord Buckethead

[MadMojoMonkey]

Buckethead?

The guitarist?

He's been knighted?

...

Respect.

[Savy]

Buckethead?

The guitarist?

He's been knighted?

...

Respect.

NO, you aren't allowed to say things about our election you wanted to leave.

[MadMojoMonkey]

NO, you aren't allowed to say things about our election you wanted to leave.

Who said anything about an election?

I just offered my opinion that it's top notch to knight someone who wears a KFC bucket on his head and jams out guitar rock like it's the 80's.

[Poopadoop]

This is a different Lord Buckethead (I assume). Some of his progressive ideals can be read about here:

https://www.joe.co.uk/politics/lord-...ght-now-128838

[wufwugy]

UKIP woulda got 500 seats if Uncle Nige was still in town.

[Savy]

UKIP woulda got 500 seats if Uncle Nige was still in town.

Farage to be next leader of the conservative party, win a snap election, become PM and nuke Brussels before the end of the year.

All whilst solving poverty (England only obvs)

[wufwugy]

Brussels could use a couple well-placed moabs

[OngBonga]

Brussels could use a couple well-placed moabs

quoted for truth

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sorry. I thought you meant this guy:

[Savy]

Sorry. I thought you meant this guy:

Then fuck off.