Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. The Diamond Casino Heist
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

BRITLAND

UK Politics & Current Affairs Discussion & DIY Home Improvement Thread

Recommended Posts

ilovebender.com
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

Outside of the UK, yes, they absolutely can.

Well in the UK, we haven't, so we've left.

Plain enough for you, nobody's bothered to tell the British electorate, so we've left.

Quote

Same as what?

Same as America where they've heard of their leaders before they come to power.

I don't think China can, and I know the EU can't.

I don't even care why EU countries are thinking about leaving like the UK did, they're in the EU.

They're in that Godless mess, so whatever. If they have the same issue, if they have another issue, don't know, don't care.

 

Edited by ilovebender.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
48 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Well in the UK, we haven't

And you wonder why the rest of the EU looks on the Union favourably. Maybe it's got something to do with them having a f*cking clue about it.

 

59 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

I don't think China can

Then you'd be wrong.

 

59 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

I know the EU can't.

Outside of the UK, I think you'll find they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

And you wonder why the rest of the EU looks on the Union favourably. Maybe it's got something to do with them having a f*cking clue about it.

So it's not because they're former Iron Curtain, Fascist Holes?

See, they might depend on the EU for fear of war or a return back to THEIR old ways, but we don't, that's why these countries look on it more favourably. 

 

Belgium, they're so boring, they wish they were anything but Belgian, including some super state EU, that's why.

35 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

 

 

Outside of the UK, I think you'll find they can.

Well inside the UK, we couldn't, so we left.

Edited by ilovebender.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
20 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

So it's not because they're former Iron Curtain, Fascist Holes?

No, it's because they're more informed, democratic and politically enlightened than the UK. As has been demonstrably and inescapably proven to you on several occasions now.

 

You really are a bigot, aren't you?

 

21 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Belgium, they're so boring

Compared to your contributions thus-far in this discussion, Belgium is a shining beacon of interest. Very little is as boring as listening to some hamfaced little Englander trying vainly to talk coherently about sh*t he, by his own admission, knows absolutely f*cking nothing about. If I wanted to be forced to listen to dumb cunts I'd stand for election.

 

25 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Well inside the UK, we couldn't

I think you're confusing couldn't with didn't here. What actively prevented people in the UK from knowing about the actual working of the EU?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

No, it's because they're more informed, democratic and politically enlightened than the UK. As has been demonstrably and inescapably proven to you on several occasions now.

When?

All you've done is moan about a bunch of EU Council MEPs saying 'without evidence' that other countries know about their EU more than the UK.

The real democracy was when UK got to vote on leaving or staying in the EU and when Boris Johnson won his mandate to do the result of that act of democracy.

The EU, no so democratic.

Quote

You really are a bigot, aren't you?

Yeah, I'm the bigot, not the Anti American EU. Sure Pal, 'whatever', because I don't settle for the EU like I used to be Communist or Fascist.

If the EU wasn't hostile to American imports, or feared competition, then I'd be cool with them, but they're not cool with American imports, and they wish to sell to the world, not buy. If they could be the  new China, they would. Do you wonder why Donald Trump spoke about placing tariffs on the EU, since the EU pretty much all but banned things coming in from America.

Quote

Compared to your contributions thus-far in this discussion, Belgium is a shining beacon of interest. Very little is as boring as listening to some hamfaced little Englander trying vainly to talk coherently about sh*t he, by his own admission, knows absolutely f*cking nothing about. If I wanted to be forced to listen to dumb cunts I'd stand for election.

Belgium's dull and you know it.

Honest to God, I've seen refugee camps passing through Calais more livelier than Belgium, and I've seen Belgium.

Quote

I think you're confusing couldn't with didn't here. What actively prevented people in the UK from knowing about the actual working of the EU?

It's not being prevented from knowing, it's not being told so not knowing.

Why should we study who our masters are? Why aren't they making it common knowledge?

Besides, it's not like anyone in the UK understood the EU anyway, according to you, so why should we be a part of the EU?

Hell, the UK was more concerned with the EU than countries on the continent when we were in the EU, I dubbed UK the country that loves to complain about the EU, go to other countries in Europe, they're so complaisant they don't even bother questioning the EU, so how can they know when they don't even talk about the EU?

UK, all we did was talk about the EU. 

Edited by ilovebender.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

When?

At literally a dozen individual occasions in this very thread, usually in response to the false assertion about the EU or countries within it being undemocratic; always with empirical evidence showing the UK ranking below a variety of our European comrades in various measures of democratic freedom.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

bunch of EU Council MEPs 

You still really don't get the difference, do you?

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

Yeah, I'm the bigot 

Yes, you are. What would you describe intentionally perpetuating assertions you know to be false in order to denigrate other nations or socioethnic groups?

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

If the EU wasn't hostile to American imports, or feared competition, then I'd be cool with them

I still think it's super cute you believe in an imaginary trade war between the US and EU. Not to mention believing that what little economic ill between the two powers is a result of EU actions. That's some meta level revisionism there.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

I've seen refugee camps 

Don't believe you for one second.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

It's not being prevented from knowing, it's not being told

So who kept the UK citizenry in the dark about how the EU works?

 

Whose fault is it that you don't know the difference between the European Parliament and European Commission?

 

Besides, this is a manifestation of pure idiocy. I don't believe for one second you could name every cabinet minister, or explain the concept of primus inter pares, or detail the specific roles and powers of the House of Lords. Whole fault is this ignorance? Are you not able to explain in detail the British legislative process from start to finish because the big bad EU denied you that information? Classic manifestation of idiocy to blame others for your inadequacy.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

Besides, it's not like anyone in the UK understood the EU anyway, according to you, so why should we be a part of the EU?

The decision to join in the first place was exceptionally well informed compared to the decision to leave. 

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

Hell, the UK was more concerned with the EU than countries on the continent when we were in the EUl

The f*ck are you even on about? If this is what you've garnered from visiting wider Europe I can only conclude you have never left Croydon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
35 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

At literally a dozen individual occasions in this very thread, usually in response to the false assertion about the EU or countries within it being undemocratic; always with empirical evidence showing the UK ranking below a variety of our European comrades in various measures of democratic freedom.

What about our real kin, the US? They're our people.

35 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

 

 

Don't believe you for one second.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
28 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

What about our real kin, the US? 

They're much less democratic than either the UK or widely EU countries. In fact the US performs so poorly on the democracy index they're no longer classes as a "full democracy", instead being categorised as "flawed" and ranked below the likes of Chile and South Korea.

 

For context; the US is 25th of 167; Portugal 22nd, France 20th, Spain and Austria joint 16th, the UK 14th, Germany 13th, Luxembourg 12th, the Netherlands 11th, Denmark 7th, Ireland 6th, Finland 5th and Sweden 3rd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

They're much less democratic than either the UK or widely EU countries. In fact the US performs so poorly on the democracy index they're no longer classes as a "full democracy", instead being categorised as "flawed" and ranked below the likes of Chile and South Korea.

 

For context; the US is 25th of 167; Portugal 22nd, France 20th, Spain and Austria joint 16th, the UK 14th, Germany 13th, Luxembourg 12th, the Netherlands 11th, Denmark 7th, Ireland 6th, Finland 5th and Sweden 3rd.

What about the EU Parliament?

Not Parliaments of countries, but the democracy at the EU level? Where does that thing we've left rank?

 

US are more our kin than European countries.

Who do you think their founding fathers took liberty from?

It was Great Britain.

Our laws rights and tax code are identical.

Only the US went one better and also drew from the Iroquois as well as Great Britain in founding that country.

 

I've been to Independence Hall, I took the tour, I saw the room America was born in.

 

 

Note that Colonial Flag.

It was English colonies that made the US, not French or Spanish, they joined what was once British, the 13 colonies never joined what broke away from Spain or France, Spanish and French, joined the country formed from our people; that's why the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were written in English, they're our cousins brothers and sisters.

 

The Mayflower set sail from England after Jamestown was established further south.

They speak English, duh.

They use dollars, another tell tale sign something's our kin.

 

Runnymede in Surrey also has American soil imported, it's home to the Magna Carta.

 

They're our kin, not some European ex Commie or Fascist or some rival in trade and imperialism.

Don't believe the EU and countries in it could ever be our cousins.

They didn't come from us, they don't believe in what we believe, and they don't even speak the same language.

Edited by ilovebender.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimbatron
Posted (edited)
On 5/29/2020 at 11:25 PM, sivispacem said:

1) Then you, in essence, accept your statement has no empirical value beyond expressing a belief. If you cannot provide empirical evidence for your hypothesis it becomes solely an article of faith. I'm not asking for categorical proof anyway, just some kind of empirical evidence.

 

2) None; you provided none. I'm still absolutely flumoxed by your continued belief that you've provided any evidence to speak of in support of your assertions before this post, hence I assume why you have been unable to quote your previous posts demonstrating where you have, in fact, provided supporting evidence.

 

3) The whole thing is a bit moot though because I'm 90% sure your initial comment was throwaway hyperbole and you weren't expecting to get called out in it the way you did. 

 

4) I think you're mistaking critiquing your absence of coherent argument for an affirmation of my holding a contrary view. Given my core points of contention are your definition of psychopathy, the absence of supplier supporting evidence, and the neglecting of any visible alternative hypotheses, I think its fairly clear where my focus has been. 

 

5) But even if this weren't the case, someone arguing the inverse of your position wouldn't logically need to provide evidence in the same way if someone arguing the affirmative. Not any more than arguing against the assertion that he's a Martian, or a turnip. The onus sits solely in you to evidence your claims, not on critics of them to "prove you wrong".

 

6) I don't think I've ever said, suggested, indicated or implied otherwise. If the litmus test for psychopathy were manufacturing and dissemination of falsehoods, then pretty much all politicians would necessarily be psychopaths.

 

7) I find it interesting you choose the most obvious but least compelling characteristic you define to evidence at length first, rather than a significantly more challenging but much more compelling one.

 

8 ) I find it rather ironic that you cast legitimate criticism of the lack of evidence supporting your assertions, plus the underlying definitions on which those are based, as "shouting bollocks from the sidelines". I think most people would find it perfectly rational, reasonable and sensible to be asked to defend and supply evidence supporting an assertion they've made; hardly "rude" or "aloof".

You have again attempted to sub divided this in to topics which are nothing to do with the question in my last post.

 

Briefly 1) talking about standards of proof in political or personality debate, then obviously you can't get laboratory or even court of law standards of proof, the term therefore "standard of proof" I find misleading when applied here. It is my suspicion you have tried to frame the debate "if you can't prove it, it's immediately discredited" - which would, if applied, discredit almost everything in this thread. Asking for more evidence however is a different thing, 2) I did provide examples, albeit not many prior to the above, you have chosen to ignore them, furthermore I have never claim to have made a full case yet, since you were adamant it was a load of rubbish, I asked you why, 3) there is nothing throw away about it, I think Boris Johnson has some rather dark personality traits that people should be worried about 4) relating to point 2 and as I've said above, it's totally fine in my view for someone to have said they want to see more evidence. But your view seemed to certain be it was wrong before you heard any, which is not the position someone holding to the rigorous scientific position you're taking, which would simply be "I don't know, tell me more" or you would provide the proof to say you know its wrong if that was going to be your clear position 5) as I pointed out, it's an internet discussion, if you want to take the opposite position, then onus is shared 6) Second part of the paragraph is not the question that is being asked in the above post, we may get to that later, but I've been very clear I was going to take one point at a time, you appear to have either not read that or deliberately ignored it. By the way though, saying all politicians are liars, presumably in attempt to downplay the evidence - that sounds very much like a populist strategy to me, distracting from one person's bad behaviour by highlighting it's wide spread in others. This is, aside from the point I think you would find it difficult to identify a front line UK politician in recent year who has lied so prolifically. Also you seem very reluctant to give a clear cut response, hence the below. 7) not as interesting as the fact you seem reluctant to give a clear cut answer, you have written 8 paragraphs unrelated to the question, and the single one that is about it roughly translates into "not denying but reluctant to agree", 8 ) you make this sound very reasonable, however I have found the use of your language and line of attack to be condescending and less than polite, which I suspect is a deliberate attempt to provoke and belittle.

 

Back to the question: Do you agree Boris Johnson has consistently shown he is liar over the years, on issues big and small, yes or no?

Edited by Jimbatron
Auto emoticons don't understand point 8 followed by a bracket isn't meant for them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
16 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

What about the EU Parliament?

What about it? Measuring the democratic potential of an international organisation is somewhat different from that of a nation state, so direct comparisons are difficult.

 

16 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

US are more our kin than European countries.

You keep asserting this, but the only thing your actually supported it with is colonial history. The other aspects- official language, legal system and political structure, you're wrong about. 

 

Cultural, socially, economically and politically, there is vast chasm between the UK and US. Social and culturally we are far closer aligned with our European comrades; federalist European states have political systems much closer to that of the US than the UK's parliamentary system.

 

The importance you place on imperial history is also laughable. I don't see you claiming Sudan, Sierra Leone, Burma, Somalia, Uganda, India or Brunei as "kin" with the UK even though they share more significant imperial history as well as many of the other aspects you cite in relation to the US.

 

16 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

Our laws rights and tax code are identical.

You and I both know this is manifestly, hilariously untrue. Largely because its been covered before.

 

16 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

I've been to Independence Hall

Ah, if only this were in some way actually relevant. 

 

16 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

They use dollars, another tell tale sign something's our kin.

Ah yes, what could be more British than the Dollar, as also used in East Timor, Zimbabwe, Somalia, El Salvador, Belize and Ecuador. But not, funnily enough, in the UK. 

 

The dollar is actually Dutch in origin, by the way. 

 

6 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

You have again attempted to sub divided this in to topics which are nothing to do with the question in my last post

Breaking your post into sub-points and rebutting them individually is pretty typical debating fare. I don't understand why you'd have an issue with it. My responses relate directly to aspects of your post; if you don't want those discussed then my suggestion would be to remove them next time.

 

6 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

Briefly 1) talking about standards of proof in political or personality debate, then obviously you can't get laboratory or even court of law standards of proof, the term therefore "standard of proof" I find misleading when applied here. 

This is a straw man though, because I've never asked for "laboratory" or "legal" standards of proof. In fact, you will note I didn't use the word "proof" at all except when paraphrasing your comments, I specifically used the word "evidence". 

 

I don't really feel like I should have to explain the meaning of evidence but I evidently do: "information based in measurement or empirical observation, which either self-evidently or through explanation supports a hypothesis."

 

Notwithstanding the fact that, according to you this isn't a personality or political discussion as you're apparently applying a psychological concept- so I would argue that necessarily you would require a higher standard of evidence.

 

6 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

It is my suspicion you have tried to frame the debate "if you can't prove it, it's immediately discredited"

My "framing of the debate" could be summarised "hypotheses that are not supported with evidence are inherently valueless", something which the vast majority of people would agree with.

 

Nothing to do with proof, nothing to do with discrediting. If you're going to argue core concepts, at least have the common decency to get them right.

 

6 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

2) I did provide examples, albeit not many prior to the above, you have chosen to ignore them

Quote the specific examples you supplied in your previous posts, and explain how they meet the standards of evidence as defined above.

 

6 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

since you were adamant it was a load of rubbish

Is it possible for you to go five seconds without inventing a new and exciting way of straw-manning my positions?

 

6 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

I think Boris Johnson has some rather dark personality traits that people should be worried about

Now you've completely reframed your argument as being something totally different. Evidently not content with simply misrepresenting my points, you've now begun misrepresenting your own. 

 

Your specific assertion was that Boris Johnson met the definition (that you provided) for psychopathy. The problem with that assertion is twofold;

 

1) the provided definition is, if not actually wrong, definitely not aligned with any qualified methodology for determining psychopathy, and;

 

2) the assertions that these criteria are met are unevidenced.

 

I don't see how I could be much clearer.

 

6 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

But your view seemed to certain be it was wrong before you heard any

So you admit you didn't actually provide any evidence then? Glad we finally cleared that up. Anyway, this is yet another straw man; I don't think I've ever said explicitly you're wrong. If I have, please point to it.

 

6 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

if you want to take the opposite position

You still seem to mistake my criticism of the content, coherence, evidence and defining assumptions of your argument as "holding an opposing position". I don't think I could be clearer on the subject but evidently you struggle with reading comprehension so hopefully the above is clear enough for you. Perhaps making it bold or bigger might work?

 

6 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

By the way though, saying all politicians are liars, presumably in attempt to downplay the evidence - that sounds very much like a populist strategy to me

Politicians, in general, have a prolific and deserved reputation for mistruth. There's no controversy in that statement.

 

Again, you seem to miss the point here; it's you, not me, who chose to place perpetuation of falsehoods front and centre of his argument that Boris Johnson is a psychopath. All I have done is question whether this inherently represents a particularly effective litmus test. I would argue it does not; notwithstanding that a core aspect of political activity is focused on twisting evidence to fit organisational narratives which is fundamentally a dishonest action there are far too many other differential diagnoses to draw a conclusion.

 

And we also have little evidence that this extends beyond his professional life; being Machiavellian in one's approach to politics isn't really an indicator of compulsive or pathological lying. 

 

6 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

not as interesting as the fact you seem reluctant to give a clear cut answer

I've given a fairly categorical answer.

 

There was a lot more to your response than that one question, why are you do hesitant to see it discussed? Why include it if you have no interest in it being given scrutiny?

 

6 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

you make this sound very reasonable

That's because it is.

 

6 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

I have found the use of your language and line of attack to be condescending and less than polite

We're pushing a dozen posts from you on the subject and we're still no closer to having a comprehensive and well-evidenced argument in support of your assertions.

 

I would counter that I've been exceptionally level-headed in the face of persistent misrepresentation, misquoting, straw man arguments and wilful ignorance all of which are at best a manifestation of poor discursive practices and at worst deliberate attempts to instigate a reaction.

 

If you want your contributions treated less contemptibly you could start by not descending into straw man arguments every five minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
1 hour ago, sivispacem said:

What about it? Measuring the democratic potential of an international organisation is somewhat different from that of a nation state, so direct comparisons are difficult.

Then compare it to what you can, a bloc.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

Then compare it to what you can, a bloc.

You and I both know this comparison is utter drivel; you posted the same video months ago and it was thoroughly rebutted. You were unable to conjure up and coherent counterpoints so buggered off for several days before coming back with something totally new to try and fail miserably at discussing.

 

Instead of retreading old ground ad nauseum, why don't you respond the myriad of rebuttals you've so far failed to address. Don't you think that would constitute a better use of your time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

You and I both know this comparison is utter drivel;

Have you got any proof?

 

Until you can prove that economic coercion the threat of the EU or political correctness of the EU to suppress intellectually aren't the EU's equivalent to military force to coerce or the gulag to suppress, the video stands and the direct comparisons valid.

Edited by ilovebender.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
4 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Have you got any proof?

 

See most of the last 20 odd pages, or however long your stupidity has infested D&D....

 

4 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Until you can prove that economic cohesion to threat of the EU or political correctness of the EU aren't the EU's equivalent to military force to suppress or the gulag, the video stands and the direct comparisons, valid.

 

Then you're an even bigger moron, and more clueless now than you were when you first stuck your pathetic opinion into a D&D post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

 

See most of the last 20 odd pages, or however long your stupidity has infested D&D....

That's not proof, that's just a bunch of Rejoiners wanting their bloc back.

 

Quote

 

Then you're an even bigger moron, and more clueless now than you were when you first stuck your pathetic opinion into a D&D post.

Proof, you're meant to be providing proof, not remoaning like a rejoiner.

 

EDIT: Not that it matters, the UK have left that bloc.

 

 

@sivispacem

You yourself said measuring the democratic potential of an international organisation is somewhat different to a nation.

Now you don't like the comparison of bloc vs. bloc?

Edited by ilovebender.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
22 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Have you got any proof?

Yes, it was posted previously as you're fully aware.

 

22 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

economic cohesion to threat of the EU 

Doesn't make any sense. Don't use words you don't understand the meaning of.

 

22 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

political correctness of the EU aren't the EU's equivalent to military force 

So your argument is what? Nonexistent EU "political correctness" is exactly equivalent to T-54 tanks on the streets of Budapest? You're a joke.

 

22 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

the video stands

The video makes no claims that even remotely resemble the nonsense you've posted above.

 

14 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

 

@sivispacem

You yourself said measuring the democratic potential of an international organisation is somewhat different to a nation.

The USSR wasn't an international organisation, you're confusing it with the Warsaw Pact. The USSR was a sovereign nation state. Therefore the comparison is inherently flawed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
3 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

So your argument is what? Nonexistent EU "political correctness" is exactly equivalent to T-54 tanks on the streets of Budapest? You're a joke.

No, the threat of withholding funding is the equivalent to tanks.

 

 

Did you even watch the video?

 

 

1 minute ago, sivispacem said:

The USSR wasn't an international organisation, you're confusing it with the Warsaw Pact. The USSR was a sovereign nation state. Therefore the comparison is inherently flawed

 

Yes, we all can agree the EU isn't a country, but the USSR was a bloc from Russia, Ukraine, Poland, East Germany etc...

The EU haven't achieved recognition like the USSR have, is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
23 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

No, the threat of withholding funding is the equivalent to tanks.

One, it's absolutely not. Try telling that to the family of a victim of Soviet military repression in Hungary, or Poland, or Berlin, or Czechoslovakia.

 

Two, you made absolutely no mention of withholding funding in your initial tirade. What you actually said was:

 

...economic cohesion to threat of the EU...

 

Which is barely even English, let alone any kind of comment on "withholding of funding".

 

23 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Yes, we all can agree the EU isn't a country, but the USSR was a bloc from Russia, Ukraine, Poland, East Germany etc...

No, it wasn't. You are describing the Warsaw Pact. Holy f*ck, can somebody possibly be that stupid?

 

The USSR was a sovereign state consisting of modern-day:

 

Armenia
Azerbaijan    
Belarus    
Estonia    
Georgia    
Kazakhstan    
Kyrgyzstan    
Latvia    
Lithuania    
Moldova    
Russia    
Tajikistan    
Turkmenistan    
Ukraine    
Uzbekistan

 

It did not ever include Poland or East Germany, who were part of the Warsaw Pact. It was also only nominally a federal republic as it was actually centrally run with only extremely limited powers assigned to federal entities. It was never a bloc; it was by definition a state evidenced by its membership of the UN which is open only to states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
7 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

One, it's absolutely not. Try telling that to the family of a victim of Soviet military repression in Hungary, or Poland, or Berlin, or Czechoslovakia.

 

Two, you made absolutely no mention of withholding funding in your initial tirade. What you actually said was:

 

...economic cohesion to threat of the EU...

 

Which is barely even English, let alone any kind of comment on "withholding of funding".

 

No, it wasn't. You are describing the Warsaw Pact. Holy f*ck, can somebody possibly be that stupid?

 

The USSR was a sovereign state consisting of modern-day:

 

Armenia
Azerbaijan    
Belarus    
Estonia    
Georgia    
Kazakhstan    
Kyrgyzstan    
Latvia    
Lithuania    
Moldova    
Russia    
Tajikistan    
Turkmenistan    
Ukraine    
Uzbekistan

 

It did not ever include Poland or East Germany, who were part of the Warsaw Pact. It was also only nominally a federal republic as it was actually centrally run with only extremely limited powers assigned to federal entities. It was never a bloc; it was by definition a state evidenced by its membership of the UN which is open only to states.

How are you telling me the Supreme Soviet is different from the EU Parliament?

 

You wanted to compare "democracies", then do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
20 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

How are you telling me the Supreme Soviet is different from the EU Parliament?

Can you not read?

 

I mean the answer to that is abundantly clear; no you cannot read.

 

If the Soviet Union is a sovereign state and the EU an economic and political alliance, then they are inherently incomparable. The roles, responsibilities and powers of the two organisations are also vastly different, as is their makeup, structure and just about every other aspect. 

 

You have no compelling argument to support your claims, all you've been able to muster is a random YouTube video that consists of nothing more than one person's opinions. If you want to be taken seriously, why don't you outline the full legislative process of the EU and Soviet Union and explain how they're identical?

 

Clue- you won't because you're too ignorant, but if you did you'd rapidly find they aren't. If your knowledge of the Soviet political system is as bad as that of the EU then I can see this being a bit embarrassing for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
22 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

 

 

If the Soviet Union is a sovereign state and the EU an economic and political alliance, then they are inherently incomparable.

This is drivel and doesn't reaffirm your claim of The Supreme Soviet and the EU Parliament not being akin to one another.

We're talking about democracies. How is the EU Parliament different from the Supreme Soviet? That's your claim, not mine.

You make wild claims of democracy being better in the EU than the US, then you say EU cannot be compared to a nation, then you claim the USSR was a nation (fine) but you don't begin to differentiate between the EU Parliament and the Supreme Soviet. 

You don't because you can't.

All you seem to be doing it knit pick between the status of the EU Vs. the USSR, but not the "Democracy" of the EU or the USSR.

When ministers rubber stamp what unelected unaccountable all powerful do, then you can't, that's why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Secura
14 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

but you don't begin to differentiate between the EU Parliament and the Supreme Soviet. 

For starters, the European Union isn't an empire. In the various expansions since the Six created their bloc, countries were not added to the EU by annexation, but rather by mass referenda of their electorates. Countries are free to turn down EU membership: Norway has voted twice against EU membership.

 

The European Union is also a democratic organization bound by laws. There are reasonable concerns about democratic accountability, particularly about the relative powers of the European Commission and the European Parliament, but all the principle figures are chosen in a democratic fashion, whether directly in European elections or indirectly via nomination or selection by democratically-elected national governments.

 

There's also the whole question of the European Union not being a one-party police state prone to the mass imprisonment of dissidents and the like. (Or have the labour camps in Lapland been hidden?) Moreover, whereas the Franco-German axis has traditionally been at the center of EU affairs and Germany is far and away economically the strongest EU (and Eurozone) countries, neither entity enjoys anything like the predominance Russia enjoyed within the Soviet Union. An absolute majority of Soviet citizens were residents of the Russian republic, or alternatively were ethnically Russian, while the Soviet capital was located in Russia, it was the Russian language that was promoted as the vehicular language, et cetera.

14 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

You don't because you can't.

Get f*cked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
6 minutes ago, Secura said:

.

Get f*cked.

You mean, f*ck the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Secura
Posted (edited)

No I mean your assertion that the EU and the USSR are in any way similar and you can't prove otherwise is bollocks.

Edited by Secura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com

The British people don't want to be in the EU anymore, because of B/S like EU Institutions and unelected EU Councils. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think you will find a majority of the the British public want to be part of Europe not part of the Euro project which is the single currency and a single European army.  The people in 1973 did not vote to be in either of these projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Secura

Neither of which the UK was required to use or contribute to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
3 minutes ago, Baserape said:

I think you will find a majority of the the British public want to be part of Europe not part of the Euro project which is the single currency and a single European army.  The people in 1973 did not vote to be in either of these projects.

We're not leaving Europe, we can't, we're an island in Europe.

What we should be doing, is giving the US a bigger foot in this region, to counter the EU's ambitions. 

To stand up to the EU.

People who want to stand up to the US include the EU, USSR, Al Qaeda, PRC China (basically your rotten).

If you want to stand up to the US, then you want to stand up with the rotten and the undeserving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.