The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: RSoul
About
User Name: RSoul
Forum Rank: Newbie
Occupation: Occupied (but not in the Shakespearean sense)
Interests: I'm not interested
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Thursday, August 29, 2019
Last Visit: Saturday, September 14, 2019 5:21:21 PM
Number of Posts: 133
[0.01% of all post / 1.25 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Is England Still Part of Europe?
Posted: Saturday, September 14, 2019 4:51:56 PM
FounDit wrote:
I was not aware that I needed to mention every detail of the topic in order to satisfy you.


I don’t need to be satisfied, I’m just trying to understand what the objective of your original post was. I’m obviously not intelligent enough to understand what you expected and my brain is starting to resemble the sci fi movie trope of the computer that has a breakdown repeating ‘Does not compute, does not compute … ’ then promptly self destructs. Did you want to discuss the mythology and disingenuity of the original article? Or did you want a literal answer to the question it posed? You haven’t made this actually clear, intelligently or non-intelligently.

FounDit wrote:
I posted the article as an example of some of the things I had been reading about Brexit, and hoped for some intelligent information from folks who live there.


The thing is, is that the article was incredibly biased, uninformed and fundamentally not intelligently written. Furthermore it contained blatant untruths and suppositions not grounded in reality. If you had expected an intelligent reply why didn’t you post a less biased, more accurate and more legitimately intelligent essay on the entire Brexit debate in the first place?

Or failing that, post a second essay alongside the original, with an alternative view of Brexit that contained actual facts. Then they could have been intelligently compared.

Good, accurate and unbiased research is always important. Well, that’s the intelligent thing to do, I suppose.

FounDit wrote:
You had a choice: you could have provided that intelligent information, as Sarriesfan did, or you could choose to be an RSoul. Your choice is obvious to all. Have a nice day.


The only choice as I see it was to intelligently elucidate on the fallacies, inconsistencies, mythologising and falsehoods in the original essay. Otherwise there was no reason to post the highly inaccurate creative writing article in the first place. I am having a really nice day thanks. Primarily because I’ve been laughing my bollocks off at your ridiculously biased and inaccurate article.







Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Topic: Is England Still Part of Europe?
Posted: Saturday, September 14, 2019 12:15:41 PM
This was precisely the kind of intelligent response I had hoped for. There hasn't been any mention of the Irish troubles here for quite some time now.

There's no mention of the troubles in the essay you originally wanted to discuss.

Is England Still Part of Europe?
By: Victor Davis Hanson

Britain has a last chance to re-embrace the free-market democratic world that it once helped to create.

British prime minister Boris Johnson is desperate to translate the British public’s June 2016 vote to leave the European Union into a concrete Brexit.

But the real issue is far older and more important than whether 52 percent of Britain finally became understandably aggrieved by the increasingly anti-democratic and German-controlled European Union.

England is an island. Historically, politically, and linguistically, it was never permanently or fully integrated into European culture and traditions.

The story of Britain has mostly been about conflict with France, Germany, or Spain. The preeminence of the Royal Navy, in the defiant spirit of its sea lords, ensured that European dictators from Napoleon to Hitler could never set foot on British soil. As British admiral John Jervis reassured his superiors in 1801 amid rumors of an impending Napoleonic invasion, “I do not say, my lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea.”

Britain’s sea power, imperialism, parliamentary government, and majority-Protestant religion set it apart from its European neighbors — and not just because of its geographical isolation.

The 18th-century British and Scottish Enlightenment of Edmund Burke, David Hume, John Locke, and Adam Smith emphasized individualism, freedom, and liberty far more than the government-enforced equality of result that was favored by French Enlightenment thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It is no accident that the American Revolution was founded on the idea of individual freedom and liberty, unlike the later French Revolution’s violent effort to redistribute income and deprive “enemies of the people” of their rights and even their lives.

France produced Napoleon, Italy had Mussolini, and Germany gave the world Hitler. It is difficult to find in British history a comparable dictatorial figure who sought Continental domination. The British, of course, were often no saints. They controlled their global empire by both persuasion and brutal force.

But even British imperialism was of a different sort than Belgian, French, German, Portuguese, or Spanish colonialism. Former British colonies America, Australia, Canada, India, and New Zealand have long been democratic, while much of Latin America, to take one example, has not until recently.

In World War I, the British lost nearly a million soldiers trying to save France and Belgium. In World War II, England was the only nation to fight the Axis for the entirety of the war (from September 1939 to September 1945), the only Allied power to fight the Axis completely alone (for about a year from mid-1940 to mid-1941), and the only major Allied power to have gone to war without having been directly attacked. (It came to the aid of its ally Poland.)

Historically, Britain has looked more upon the seas and the New World than eastward to Europe. In that transatlantic sense, a Canadian or American typically had more in common with an Englander than did a German or Greek.

Over the last 30 years, the British nearly forgot that fact as they merged into the European Union and pledged to adopt European values in a shared trajectory to supposed utopia.

To the degree that England remained somewhat suspicious of EU continentalism by rejecting the euro and not embracing European socialism, the country thrived. But when Britain followed the German example of open borders, reversed the market reforms of Margaret Thatcher, and adopted the pacifism and energy fantasies of the EU, it stagnated.

Johnson’s efforts as the new prime minister ostensibly are to carry out the will of the British people as voiced in 2016, against the wishes of the European Union apparat and most of the British establishment. But after hundreds of years of rugged independence, will Britain finally merge into Europe, or will it retain its singular culture and grow closer to the English-speaking countries it once founded — which are doing better than most of the members of the increasingly regulated and anti-democratic European Union.

Europe is alarmingly unarmed. Most NATO members refuse to make their promised investments in defense. Negative interest rates are becoming normal in Europe. Unemployment remains high in tightly regulated labor markets.

Southern European countries can never fully repay their loans from German banks. The dissident Visegrád Group, composed of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, seeks to create a mini alliance inside the EU that promotes secure borders, legal immigration only, nuclear power, and traditional values and Christianity.

Britain has a last chance to re-embrace the free-market democratic world that it once helped to create — and distance itself from the creeping statism it once opposed.


Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics professor, scholar of ancient warfare, and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.



An essay, incidentally, riddled with inaccuracies, inconsistencies, surmise and blatantly false statements.

England is an island. Historically, politically, and linguistically, it was never permanently or fully integrated into European culture and traditions.

England isn't an island. It shares an island with Scotland and Wales, both countries which have their own devolved governments, languages and distinct cultures.

Linguistically 'English' is a Frisian-Germanic language which only appeared on the island in the 5th century.

The 18th-century British and Scottish Enlightenment ...


The Acts of Union were two Acts of Parliament: the Union with Scotland Act 1706 passed by the Parliament of England, and the Union with England Act passed in 1707 by the Parliament of Scotland. They put into effect the terms of the Treaty of Union that had been agreed on 22 July 1706, following negotiation between commissioners representing the parliaments of the two countries. By the two Acts, the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland—which at the time were separate states with separate legislatures, but with the same monarch—were, in the words of the Treaty, "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain".[2] ~ Wikipedia

British Enlightenment? Is that England and Wales? The rather obtuse author doesn't seem very sure.

Europe is alarmingly unarmed. Most NATO members refuse to make their promised investments in defense.

I've already answered this with a quote and it is totally false. It is a pure right wing fantasy that Europe is unarmed with the inference that it relies on Uncle Sam to protect it. In the Pacific the US is losing military supremacy to China. The US is going to need allies in the Pacific soon the way things are going. Those allies may very well someday be European.

These are just a few inaccuracies.

If you want an intelligent debate, you need to have posted an intelligent essay to discuss. Not something as hideously uninformed, biased and distorted as the one you posted.

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Topic: Is England Still Part of Europe?
Posted: Saturday, September 14, 2019 8:45:45 AM
BobShilling wrote:
RSoul wrote:

I wouldn't even eat fish and chips out of them.

I am afraid it was that attitude that led to the remainers (including me) seriously underestimating the pro=Brexit side.

Most of the British people I know were remainers. The newspapers I read were pro-remain. It just slipped my/our attention that roughly half the country wanted out, and some pretty influential parts of the media were feeding their antipathy towards the EU.

I think many Democrats made the same mistake in 2016 in the USA. Because they subscribed only to media they approved of, and mixed only with like-minded people, they simply did not realise that nearly half the country wanted what Trump offered.

Trump is still on over 40% approval rating. and could win the 2020 election.

In the UK, Johnson is on about 40%, with Corbyn at about 20%. Swinson (strongly pro-remain) is, at 32% , only two percentage points ahead of Farage (strongly pro-Brexit).

Just because we intelligent, reasonable, fair-minded (Whistle ) people would prefer to remain, and are strongly opposed to a no-deal Brexit, it does not mean that everybody agrees. Johnson could win a general election, and the Brexiters could win a referendum.


Yes, it's scary. I don't need to read the right wing press though, as I know what they say.

To be honest, I don't know which is the most beneficial; leaving or remaining. I would have liked an honest, intelligent, well informed and researched public debate with a clear presentation of the facts before any referendum.

Instead we got the pantomime histrionics of the Brexiteers and huge pork pies.

I think the UK could survive leaving with a decent deal. May, who was always uninspiring and deliberately avoided any public debating, was stymied by a minority of Brexiteers going all 'baby Trump' tantrum and stamping their feet with their respective fingers in their ears.

I honestly think that now many realise that the immigration issue and EU payments were scaremongering and that the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems all have similar immigration policies anyway, leaving the EU doesn't make any real economic sense. It could be enough for a remain vote.

Leaving the EU with no deal is economic suicide.

My other fear is that this whole fandango will contribute to an escalation of violence in NI. The peace is fragile enough, we don't need a mainland bombing campaign to start again.














Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Topic: Is England Still Part of Europe?
Posted: Saturday, September 14, 2019 6:28:55 AM
BobShilling wrote:

Read the Telegraph, Mail and Sun.


I wouldn't even eat fish and chips out of them.

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Topic: Is England Still Part of Europe?
Posted: Saturday, September 14, 2019 6:11:20 AM
FounDit wrote:

Then it would be constrained by the EU if it remained joined to it. Perhaps this is what was found objectionable by the majority of the people.


I believe the vote was around 52% majority. It seemed to me that the main issue that people voted on was the perceived mass immigration threat created by the Schengen Agreement.

FounDit wrote:
So it seems it is this decision the ruling class thought needs to be voted on until the "right" decision was achieved.



You're going to have to define the 'ruling class'. A small minority of Tories, often referred to as the 'Brexiteers' want to leave the EU for reasons better known to themselves. For years people like Boris Johnson (especially when he was a journalist) demonised and told outright lies about EU membership. These and similar were often repeated in the right wing tabloids. This eventually developed into a near hysterical panic primarily about mass immigration at the time of the referendum.

The 'ruling class' Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, promised a referendum even though he himself wanted to remain in the European Union.

The 52% who voted to leave didn't really give a fig about 'EU constraints' in my opinion, but were more concerned about border control and mass immigration due to the Schengen Agreement. In fact it seemed the 'majority' were concerned that there was too much 'freedom' and not enough constraint.

It's pretty obvious why the Brexiteers want to leave the EU. They don't want the 'constraints' of the comprehensive EU labour rights.

The way Johnson is going there may very well be another referendum. I'm guessing the 'majority' outcome may very well be different now that the mendacious dust has settled.



Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Topic: Is England Still Part of Europe?
Posted: Friday, September 13, 2019 6:37:39 PM
xohihabi wrote:
My point of view is quite simple, England is not on the map of Europe, therefore it does not stop Shame on you


Erm ... run that by me again please?

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Topic: Is England Still Part of Europe?
Posted: Friday, September 13, 2019 6:24:09 PM
FounDit wrote:
RSoul wrote:
Interestingly, Cameron, who initiated the referendum, is a bit disappointed with the outcome (he wanted to remain).

The vote was very close anyway, and was mainly decided on lies and immigration fears.

Cameron says that a new referendum shouldn't be discounted.

If there is one I'd guess the remainers would win.

Interestingly, it was always assumed by many that the referendum to join the EEC in the first place was fixed.

The source was commenting on Brexit. The topic was Brexit. Intelligent thinking and some cogent thinking was sought on Brexit. This should not have been too difficult to understand. But as I said, criticism is easier for some than thinking.

'Intelligent thinking' and 'Brexit' don't really go together. The whole issue was based on lies, disinformation and hysteria fomented in the main by the Johnson pork pie factory, the mendacious Gove and the irritatingly smug Rees-Mogg.

The question that no one is really asking, is what is the real motive of the Brexiteers for leaving the world's largest trade bloc?


Um, sovereignty? The desire to make decisions for the people of G.B. by people living in G.B., rather than folks in Brussels? Just a guess and a suggestion.


I think the 'sovereignty' issue is a bit of a distraction. The UK does govern itself, and determines its own laws and policies. Parliamentary sovereignty is the highest source of authority to make laws without restriction. Parliament is only constrained by its obligations within EU membership.

The EU has comprehensive labour rights. It has also invested heavily in many deprived areas in South Wales, the North and the Midlands.

I wonder why the extreme right wing of the Tories dislike that? Whistle



Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Topic: "An Open Letter to My Trump-Supporting Family"
Posted: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:11:07 PM
Romany wrote:
"Collective"? "attack"? "intimidation" "its not my fault..."?

Sigh!

OK. so go for it: wander about the threads making personal comments and being curmudgeonly if that's what you joined for. Seems more and more people get their jollies through argument, insult, and an absolute and overwhelming need never to admit they might have any faults themselves. Whatever gets you through the night.

As for the "I'm not intimidated by you"...why on EARTH should you be? That's probably the strangest thing that has ever been said to me in my life. Though , having no idea about who/what I am, you obviously don't get to share the joke implicit in it.




Have a nice day.

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Topic: Is England Still Part of Europe?
Posted: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:04:11 PM
Interestingly, Cameron, who initiated the referendum, is a bit disappointed with the outcome (he wanted to remain).

The vote was very close anyway, and was mainly decided on lies and immigration fears.

Cameron says that a new referendum shouldn't be discounted.

If there is one I'd guess the remainers would win.

Interestingly, it was always assumed by many that the referendum to join the EEC in the first place was fixed.

The source was commenting on Brexit. The topic was Brexit. Intelligent thinking and some cogent thinking was sought on Brexit. This should not have been too difficult to understand. But as I said, criticism is easier for some than thinking.

'Intelligent thinking' and 'Brexit' don't really go together. The whole issue was based on lies, disinformation and hysteria fomented in the main by the Johnson pork pie factory, the mendacious Gove and the irritatingly smug Rees-Mogg.

The question that no one is really asking, is what is the real motive of the Brexiteers for leaving the world's largest trade bloc?

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Topic: little donny's fake news
Posted: Friday, September 13, 2019 1:40:52 PM
Beth Rosser wrote:
rsoul- too funny


Yes, but is it fake funny, fake, fake funny, or fake, fake, fake funny? lol

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.