bravedave
Well-Known Member
You mean "leftist"? <insert eye roll>
Hillary can't be trusted
- Thread starter Flaming Pie
- Start date
- Status
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Reading is a good strategy for comprehension.
Rizlared
Well-Known Member
The EU has euro MPs that we elect to represent us, but they can't. They have a voice and a vote but no power.
it's an illusion of democracy.
Sitting above them are an unelected council who can over ride any vote.
So it's dead simple really, I had the opportunity to vote between a system of government that I can influence and a system of government that I can't.
Without an ability to shape the EU...where does it go? it's own army, a police state? There is nothing in place to protect me or my family from this.
They brought about the EU by stealth, smoke and mirrors.
It was set up for the interest of multi nationals and big business.
They control the council.
That isn't something I wish to pass on to my children
it's an illusion of democracy.
Sitting above them are an unelected council who can over ride any vote.
So it's dead simple really, I had the opportunity to vote between a system of government that I can influence and a system of government that I can't.
Without an ability to shape the EU...where does it go? it's own army, a police state? There is nothing in place to protect me or my family from this.
They brought about the EU by stealth, smoke and mirrors.
It was set up for the interest of multi nationals and big business.
They control the council.
That isn't something I wish to pass on to my children
Rizlared
Well-Known Member
why do I bother?
Stop getting your history from movies and talking in clichés
You're actually quite shit at fighting wars...but that's not one i want to get into because I find no positives in anyone being good at this
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Around here left/right/ liberal/conservative can and will be thrown around as an insult and used as an excuse to harrass.
I read hostility in your post.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
I agree. Glad to see that it worked out for you guys. I personally think the EU is what you say it is. I also think Hillary would very much like to emulate the EU policies. She also would be pushing more regime changes.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Slightly misleading question as America made up a large part of the Allies. Otherwise I would argue that "almost certainly not" would be a better answer than "possibly"
And it is 99% likely that material aid from the other Allies made all the difference in allowing the Russians to continue the war beyond winter of 41. After that one of the single largest factors leading to the Soviet victory was Allied aid. I know it is sometimes difficult to understand the importance of trucks in mid Century warfare. The logistical leverage provided by the importation of trucks alone (and we both sent the USSR much, much more than trucks) is easy to understate but was critical. Trucks led to the Soviet victory - both as movers of material and by allowing the Soviet factories to produce numerically overwhelming numbers of armored vehicles - as much as tanks and aircraft (which were also both provided in great numbers). Not in any way to take away from the Soviet Great Patriotic War - I have a thorough understanding of their effort and sacrifice. The Soviets did most of the fighting in Europe, but dismissing the direct (material) and indirect (due to other non-Soviet European Theaters) aid is missing a large part of the story.
Stalin begged a lot about many things. We didn't sit back allowing him to take his lumps as you say. We did what we were capable of. Dieppe helped nobody. Sorry if Stalin wanted Normandy a year or two earlier but it was not logistically possible to do so. Sorry if you diminish the impact of other fronts but they needed to be done and they could be with the available resources. Churchill wanted to invade fucking Greece for chrissakes.
Excuse me if I don't eat a lot of crow here the way revisionists would like me to. I think the evidence shows that the conduct of the Western Allies in the war showed a serious commitment to the Alliance and that American conduct in particular showed true altruism at times that bordered on naivety.
I know it is all the rage to spout the dismissive line of many current thinkers but that shit was in vogue 20 years ago and has largely been discredited academically. Funny how it conveniently overlooks the fact that the Soviet Union was a Nazi ally until June of 1941 (Even until several days after Barbarossa began in Stalin's case who felt that Hitler was still just posturing for the upper hand in the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939). Let us not forget that a huge factor in the near extinction of the Soviet Union was purges in the military at Stalin's behest out of sheer paranoia.
We never agreed to it. It wasn't the deal, officially. Maybe it was naive for us to expect any different. Churchill knew better and had discussed it directly with Stalin. The region's influence was decided by he and Stalin on a literal napkin.
Why did we let it happen? Realpolitik. Unless you want to begin a new war. We didn't and you couldn't.
Our policies were, if anything, naive.
oh please. When you are making international policy your first goal is to protect and further the interests of your state. It is what you do. We largely got tudored by the British who had been doing it for longer than we had existed.
Also, there is literally nothing that one can do to help another that cannot be called self interest. Grow up.
Last edited:
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you brexit voters were so worried about brown people destroying the economy that you dumb white people destroyed the economy there instead.
the irony couldn't be more delicious.
bravedave
Well-Known Member
. Oh and this is not assholy? Unlike you, I will not jump to a conclusion that my read-list is bigger than yours, but it has been constant since I was about 10 and you can see by my profile that I am 116. I usually have 2 or more books going and they are not all about Jack Reacher.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
reading list?
all you ever do is watch pragerU videos. ya know, the non-accredited white supremacy college.
Rizlared
Well-Known Member
you make some valid points.Slightly misleading question as America made up a large part of the Allies. Otherwise I would argue that "almost certainly not" would be a better answer than "possibly"
And it is 99% likely that material aid from the other Allies made all the difference in allowing the Russians to continue the war beyond winter of 41. After that one of the single largest factors leading to the Soviet victory was Allied aid. I know it is sometimes difficult to understand the importance of trucks in mid Century warfare. The logistical leverage provided by the importation of trucks alone (and we both sent the USSR much, much more than trucks) is easy to understate but was critical. Trucks led to the Soviet victory - both as movers of material and by allowing the Soviet factories to produce numerically overwhelming numbers of armored vehicles - as much as tanks and aircraft (which were also both provided in great numbers). Not in any way to take away from the Soviet Great Patriotic War - I have a thorough understanding of their effort and sacrifice. The Soviets did most of the fighting in Europe, but dismissing the direct (material) and indirect (due to other non-Soviet European Theaters) aid is missing a large part of the story.
Stalin begged a lot about many things. We didn't sit back allowing him to take his lumps as you say. We did what we were capable of. Dieppe helped nobody. Sorry if Stalin wanted Normandy a year or two earlier but it was not logistically possible to do so. Sorry if you diminish the impact of other fronts but they needed to be done and they could be with the available resources. Churchill wanted to invade fucking Greece for chrissakes.
Excuse me if I don't eat a lot of crow here the way revisionists would like me to. I think the evidence shows that the conduct of the Western Allies in the war showed a serious commitment to the Alliance and that American conduct in particular showed true altruism at times that bordered on naivety.
I know it is all the rage to spout the dismissive line of many current thinkers but that shit was in vogue 20 years ago and has largely been discredited academically. Funny how it conveniently overlooks the fact that the Soviet Union was a Nazi ally until June of 1941 (Even until several days after Barbarossa began in Stalin's case who felt that Hitler was still just posturing for the upper hand in the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939). Let us not forget that a huge factor in the near extinction of the Soviet Union was purges in the military at Stalin's behest out of sheer paranoia.
We never agreed to it. It wasn't the deal, officially. Maybe it was naive for us to expect any different. Churchill knew better and had discussed it directly with Stalin. The region's influence was decided by he and Stalin on a literal napkin.
Why did we let it happen? Realpolitik. Unless you want to begin a new war. We didn't and you couldn't.
Our policies were, if anything, naive.
oh please. When you are making international policy your first goal is to protect and further the interests of your state. It is what you do. We largely got tudored by the British who had been doing it for longer than we had existed.
Also, there is literally nothing that one can do to help another that cannot be called self interest. Grow up.
I've just got in from the pub and things are fuzzy, I am happy.
I would like to take some of what you say to task...but now is not the time.
Thanks for going to more effort than to just call me a retard
lol. you know fuck all
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
this was literally the poster for voting brexit:
is that nigel farage, the clown baby of brexit love, standing in front of an incredibly racist poster?
jesusfuck. what a sad day when a dumbass american knows more about english politics than a drunk limey toothless loser.
Rizlared
Well-Known Member
Well I wouldn't be so rude as to call you a dumb ass American but as you self confess this...this was literally the poster for voting brexit:
is that nigel farage, the clown baby of brexit love, standing in front of an incredibly racist poster?
jesusfuck. what a sad day when a dumbass american knows more about english politics than a drunk limey toothless loser.
Farage is leader of ukip.
Not everyone who voted brexit agrees with ukip.
Neither have you qualified how that poster suggests brown people would ruin our economy as you stated.
but that's probably because, in your own words, you're a dumb ass American
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you're not really good at putting two and two together i suppose. because the poster kinda speaks for itself.
have fun knowing you allied yourself with the racists.
zeddd
Well-Known Member
There is no left or right wing, there is only the dialectic and its participants, the matrix and those who shout racist
Rizlared
Well-Known Member
I know some perfectly nice racists.
I know some dickhead non racists.
Some racists I know dislike financial inequality, I align myself with them there also.
Only a dumb ass American would assume that, as I disagree with someone on one issue (such as racism) that I must disagree with everything they believe.
Now, uncle buck, I will humour you no further by replying to your posts.
I've not really been doing this chatting to people in forums thing for that long.
I've never met such closed minded, offensive trolls before...so I was a bit shellshocked at first and then I decided to play.
You are unworthy of playing with.
Your debating skills are non existent
Your insults are ridiculously infantile (retard, racist, penis related)
Have fun but quite simply, intellectually you do not challenge or stimulate me and you fail to ever make me laugh.
Find others with a pre school mentality, you'll stand a better chance
Bye x
Rizlared
Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick;
Too much info to try and reply to it all, for some reason my short term memory isn't what it once was, but it's good info and appreciate your efforts.
So in general;
I can't argue against any of your financial or logistical support points as they are sound.
It what happened and also had a great effect on the outcome.
I would argue that, without the usa intervention, it is far from likely that Germany wins. It overstretched but if we discuss this (and I'm happy to) it can only be opinion based.
Toward the end, unless I have misinterpreted, you allude to the UK's empire and that we also stayed out of wars etc until it was in our financial interest to involve ourselves and that we abused our power when doing so.
Absofuckinglutely.
I don't advocate it as a way for any nation to behave and don't excuse our behaviour at all.
Hitler didn't actually want to fight us and I believe a case can be made for not getting involved at all. Something else I'd be happy to discuss.
You, or someone else, mentioned real politic. The Molotov Ribbentrop pact was exactly that. The communists were the ideological enemy of the Nazis and they wanted breathing space...at the expense of Poland.
I make no excuses for any nation.
I take no pride in 'winning' the war
And there was an agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt to allow Germany and Russia to knock lumps out of each other.
Equally, there was conversation between Roosevelt and Stalin that the outcome of the war would mean the end of the British empire.
The problem I have with self interest is there is no self.
We are a species surviving on a rock with finite resources and a fixed period of time to reside on that rock.
Doing what is best for the uk, or best for American interests (or any other nation) is short termism and has only ever created future problems.
Tad hung over, hope this makes sense
Too much info to try and reply to it all, for some reason my short term memory isn't what it once was, but it's good info and appreciate your efforts.
So in general;
I can't argue against any of your financial or logistical support points as they are sound.
It what happened and also had a great effect on the outcome.
I would argue that, without the usa intervention, it is far from likely that Germany wins. It overstretched but if we discuss this (and I'm happy to) it can only be opinion based.
Toward the end, unless I have misinterpreted, you allude to the UK's empire and that we also stayed out of wars etc until it was in our financial interest to involve ourselves and that we abused our power when doing so.
Absofuckinglutely.
I don't advocate it as a way for any nation to behave and don't excuse our behaviour at all.
Hitler didn't actually want to fight us and I believe a case can be made for not getting involved at all. Something else I'd be happy to discuss.
You, or someone else, mentioned real politic. The Molotov Ribbentrop pact was exactly that. The communists were the ideological enemy of the Nazis and they wanted breathing space...at the expense of Poland.
I make no excuses for any nation.
I take no pride in 'winning' the war
And there was an agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt to allow Germany and Russia to knock lumps out of each other.
Equally, there was conversation between Roosevelt and Stalin that the outcome of the war would mean the end of the British empire.
The problem I have with self interest is there is no self.
We are a species surviving on a rock with finite resources and a fixed period of time to reside on that rock.
Doing what is best for the uk, or best for American interests (or any other nation) is short termism and has only ever created future problems.
Tad hung over, hope this makes sense
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Inflation is up...
Pound is down...
Growth is down...
And they haven't even left the EU yet.
Some of those fat, bald, English morons (with bad teeth) might have to get jobs now with no immigrants to fill them.
Pound is down...
Growth is down...
And they haven't even left the EU yet.
Some of those fat, bald, English morons (with bad teeth) might have to get jobs now with no immigrants to fill them.
- Status