Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Popular UK Google Search

Boneyard
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 2:59:28 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/25/2016 12:51:30 PM, slo1 wrote:
Lol,

what is the EU?

http://fortune.com...

I'm starting to hear of a lot of buyers remorse.

This is shameful, for those that voted without understanding despite weeks of debate, it is shameful that the arguments to remain were ignored in favour of jingoistic sound bites that justified xenophobia and division.
lannan13
Posts: 23,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 3:22:48 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 2:59:28 AM, Boneyard wrote:
At 6/25/2016 12:51:30 PM, slo1 wrote:
Lol,

what is the EU?

http://fortune.com...

I'm starting to hear of a lot of buyers remorse.

This is shameful, for those that voted without understanding despite weeks of debate, it is shameful that the arguments to remain were ignored in favour of jingoistic sound bites that justified xenophobia and division.

It's called an uneducated democracy for a reason.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 3:42:43 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Two things:

First, around a third of the population did not vote. Many of the people searching for this likely didn't vote and wanted to understand what the fuss was about.

Second, not knowing exactly what something is or what it does is a pretty good reason to vote against it when that something is a bureaucracy passing laws that you must follow and that you pay for with tax money. The default position when you're asked to give up national sovereignty should be "no." The EU utterly failed to demonstrate to the people why they should be a member--to the point where many people did not understand what the EU actually did.

The burden of proof was on the Eurocrats and they dropped the ball.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Boneyard
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 5:09:12 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 3:42:43 AM, thett3 wrote:
Two things:

First, around a third of the population did not vote. Many of the people searching for this likely didn't vote and wanted to understand what the fuss was about.

Second, not knowing exactly what something is or what it does is a pretty good reason to vote against it when that something is a bureaucracy passing laws that you must follow and that you pay for with tax money. The default position when you're asked to give up national sovereignty should be "no." The EU utterly failed to demonstrate to the people why they should be a member--to the point where many people did not understand what the EU actually did.

The burden of proof was on the Eurocrats and they dropped the ball.

Good point about the none voters. Though perhaps overstated.
The other points I kinda disagree with somewhat. Not understanding the EU is a good reason for asking more questions not to vote against it. When you are asked to choose between a known and some unknown the default should be to stick with what you know.
No one was asked to give up national sovereignty but to reclaim what was supposed to be lost.
That the EU failed to demonstrate the value of membership is contentious. The other more eager citizen members of the EU understand a heck of a lot more than the reluctant portions of the British public. I see it more as a failure of some portion of the British public to engage with the idea and values of the EU. The shout of scaremongering to drown out pertinent facts while romancing the lies of brexit is a prime example of this illogic. However with the rapid rise of the far right to educate the people in the workings of the EU is a valid precaution.
Finally on the point of sovereignty, when nation groups join together for the better of the whole as is the remit of the EU some individual freedoms are lost in transition. I have no problem with this, nationalistic fervour is overrated IMO.
Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland all gave up some sovereignty when forced into the United Kingdom. Yorkshire and Lancashire (all the counties) gave up some sovereignty when forced into becoming England. You can see what I am aiming at here.
It was not the EU that dropped the ball but us.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 5:14:09 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 3:42:43 AM, thett3 wrote:
One thing:

The default position when you're asked to give up national sovereignty should be "no."

I don't know why this idea is still being debated....
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 12:29:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 5:14:09 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/29/2016 3:42:43 AM, thett3 wrote:
One thing:

The default position when you're asked to give up national sovereignty should be "no."

I don't know why this idea is still being debated....

Because there would have not been an United States. Even Switzerland wouldnt be a confederation if that was the only standard. Sovereignty is not the only consideration when deciding to form a union or confederation, both of which give up sovereignty to different levels of degree.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 3:14:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 3:42:43 AM, thett3 wrote:
Two things:

First, around a third of the population did not vote. Many of the people searching for this likely didn't vote and wanted to understand what the fuss was about.

Second, not knowing exactly what something is or what it does is a pretty good reason to vote against it when that something is a bureaucracy passing laws that you must follow and that you pay for with tax money. The default position when you're asked to give up national sovereignty should be "no." The EU utterly failed to demonstrate to the people why they should be a member--to the point where many people did not understand what the EU actually did.
I can't agree with that. I think the default position, if there be one, should be the status quo. I believe stability is always to be favoured over uncertainty if it's not immediately apparent that uncertainty will bring better consequences in the long run.

There is a separatist movement where I live. If we had an independence referendum (referenda are illegal here, but let's pretend for the sake of argument that they are) and there will be guaranteed full democracy once we attain independence, I will absolutely vote 'stay' and urge everyone else to do the same.
The burden of proof was on the Eurocrats and they dropped the ball.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 3:15:41 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 3:14:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/29/2016 3:42:43 AM, thett3 wrote:
Two things:

First, around a third of the population did not vote. Many of the people searching for this likely didn't vote and wanted to understand what the fuss was about.

Second, not knowing exactly what something is or what it does is a pretty good reason to vote against it when that something is a bureaucracy passing laws that you must follow and that you pay for with tax money. The default position when you're asked to give up national sovereignty should be "no." The EU utterly failed to demonstrate to the people why they should be a member--to the point where many people did not understand what the EU actually did.
I can't agree with that. I think the default position, if there be one, should be the status quo. I believe stability is always to be favoured over uncertainty if it's not immediately apparent that uncertainty will bring better consequences in the long run.

There is a separatist movement where I live. If we had an independence referendum (referenda are illegal here, but let's pretend for the sake of argument that they aren't) and there will be guaranteed full democracy once we attain independence, I will absolutely vote 'stay' and urge everyone else to do the same.
The burden of proof was on the Eurocrats and they dropped the ball.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 3:22:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 3:14:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/29/2016 3:42:43 AM, thett3 wrote:
Two things:

First, around a third of the population did not vote. Many of the people searching for this likely didn't vote and wanted to understand what the fuss was about.

Second, not knowing exactly what something is or what it does is a pretty good reason to vote against it when that something is a bureaucracy passing laws that you must follow and that you pay for with tax money. The default position when you're asked to give up national sovereignty should be "no." The EU utterly failed to demonstrate to the people why they should be a member--to the point where many people did not understand what the EU actually did.
I can't agree with that. I think the default position, if there be one, should be the status quo. I believe stability is always to be favoured over uncertainty if it's not immediately apparent that uncertainty will bring better consequences in the long run.
To clarify this point, I was saying that stability should be favoured over uncertainty in ALL situations, not just circumstances where sovereignty is at stake.
There is a separatist movement where I live. If we had an independence referendum (referenda are illegal here, but let's pretend for the sake of argument that they are) and there will be guaranteed full democracy once we attain independence, I will absolutely vote 'stay' and urge everyone else to do the same.
The burden of proof was on the Eurocrats and they dropped the ball.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 3:47:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 12:29:30 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 5:14:09 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/29/2016 3:42:43 AM, thett3 wrote:
One thing:

The default position when you're asked to give up national sovereignty should be "no."

I don't know why this idea is still being debated....

Because there would have not been an United States. Even Switzerland wouldnt be a confederation if that was the only standard. Sovereignty is not the only consideration when deciding to form a union or confederation, both of which give up sovereignty to different levels of degree.

You know that is false, it took years and years of negotiations, and the burdon of proof was on the Sons of Liberty to persuade the colonists, not the Tories. The Tories didn't have to defend the King. That was the default.

What helped a great deal was to show that National sovereignty was dead because the colinists were not being treated the same as British citizens. But the Tories did not have to prove a goddamn thing to anyone.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 3:49:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 3:14:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/29/2016 3:42:43 AM, thett3 wrote:


I can't agree with that. I think the default position, if there be one, should be the status quo. I believe stability is always to be favoured over uncertainty if it's not immediately apparent that uncertainty will bring better consequences in the long run.

Generally speaking I agree with this, but I do not think at the time when Britain joined the EU that they foresaw a loss of control of their country.
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 4:25:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 3:14:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/29/2016 3:42:43 AM, thett3 wrote:
Two things:

First, around a third of the population did not vote. Many of the people searching for this likely didn't vote and wanted to understand what the fuss was about.

Second, not knowing exactly what something is or what it does is a pretty good reason to vote against it when that something is a bureaucracy passing laws that you must follow and that you pay for with tax money. The default position when you're asked to give up national sovereignty should be "no." The EU utterly failed to demonstrate to the people why they should be a member--to the point where many people did not understand what the EU actually did.
I can't agree with that. I think the default position, if there be one, should be the status quo. I believe stability is always to be favoured over uncertainty if it's not immediately apparent that uncertainty will bring better consequences in the long run.

I'm not really making a normative statement, I'm just saying what motivates people to vote.

The "people break for the status quo" heuristic is an interesting one that's usually correct, but not always, especially when the status quo feels so...foreign to many people. If people actually didn't understand the EU the question before them when they voted was "you can to give up control to a huge multinational bureaucracy...but you're not really sure what it is or what it does. Yes or no?"

The obvious default response is going to be "no." The Eurocrats had the obligation to prove to the people why they should allow a huge multinational organization to have power over them. They totally failed to make the case--because their little club is stupid and obviously bad for the British people. They had literally no argument other than "we will punish you if you leave"


There is a separatist movement where I live. If we had an independence referendum (referenda are illegal here, but let's pretend for the sake of argument that they are) and there will be guaranteed full democracy once we attain independence, I will absolutely vote 'stay' and urge everyone else to do the same.
The burden of proof was on the Eurocrats and they dropped the ball.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 4:30:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 3:47:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/29/2016 12:29:30 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 5:14:09 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/29/2016 3:42:43 AM, thett3 wrote:
One thing:

The default position when you're asked to give up national sovereignty should be "no."

I don't know why this idea is still being debated....

Because there would have not been an United States. Even Switzerland wouldnt be a confederation if that was the only standard. Sovereignty is not the only consideration when deciding to form a union or confederation, both of which give up sovereignty to different levels of degree.

You know that is false, it took years and years of negotiations, and the burdon of proof was on the Sons of Liberty to persuade the colonists, not the Tories. The Tories didn't have to defend the King. That was the default.

What helped a great deal was to show that National sovereignty was dead because the colinists were not being treated the same as British citizens. But the Tories did not have to prove a goddamn thing to anyone.

Granted, but the move from articles of confederation to Constitution was one that reduced state sovereignty. Sovereignty should not be a default. It is just a consideration of whether limiting of sovereignty is acceptable with the gains a union brings.

The true default for countries, companies, tribes, religion, etc is growth. Sovereignty limits growth. At least that is one way to think of it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 4:55:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 4:30:04 PM, slo1 wrote:

Granted, but the move from articles of confederation to Constitution was one that reduced state sovereignty. Sovereignty should not be a default. It is just a consideration of whether limiting of sovereignty is acceptable with the gains a union brings.

The true default for countries, companies, tribes, religion, etc is growth. Sovereignty limits growth. At least that is one way to think of it.

So you agree then that the Tories did not have to prove a damn thing, right?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 4:56:47 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 4:30:04 PM, slo1 wrote:

The true default for countries, companies, tribes, religion, etc is growth. Sovereignty limits growth. At least that is one way to think of it.

Lol, no it is not. If that were the case, every business would be set up like a ponzi scheme.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 4:59:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 4:25:32 PM, thett3 wrote:

The "people break for the status quo" heuristic is an interesting one that's usually correct, but not always, especially when the status quo feels so...foreign to many people. If people actually didn't understand the EU the question before them when they voted was "you can to give up control to a huge multinational bureaucracy...but you're not really sure what it is or what it does. Yes or no?"


Really, where the pundits got the whole issue monumentally wrong was assuming a few decades in the EU trumps the status quo of centuries of British Nationalism.

It should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain what the status quo was.
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 5:25:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 4:56:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/29/2016 4:30:04 PM, slo1 wrote:

The true default for countries, companies, tribes, religion, etc is growth. Sovereignty limits growth. At least that is one way to think of it.

Lol, no it is not. If that were the case, every business would be set up like a ponzi scheme.

Lol, how are unions and confederations Ponzi schemes?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 5:31:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 5:25:21 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 4:56:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/29/2016 4:30:04 PM, slo1 wrote:

The true default for countries, companies, tribes, religion, etc is growth. Sovereignty limits growth. At least that is one way to think of it.

Lol, no it is not. If that were the case, every business would be set up like a ponzi scheme.

Lol, how are unions and confederations Ponzi schemes?

And every nation would be a ravaging horde...
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 5:44:41 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 4:55:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/29/2016 4:30:04 PM, slo1 wrote:

Granted, but the move from articles of confederation to Constitution was one that reduced state sovereignty. Sovereignty should not be a default. It is just a consideration of whether limiting of sovereignty is acceptable with the gains a union brings.

The true default for countries, companies, tribes, religion, etc is growth. Sovereignty limits growth. At least that is one way to think of it.

So you agree then that the Tories did not have to prove a damn thing, right?

That is more of a question of politics. If I had my druthers I would sanction each side to create a cost benefit analysis and use that as a basis of discussion. It certainly would have been to their benefit to explain the costs of declaring Independence versus remaining a colony.

I don't think I'm quite getting your point. If the default is to sovereignty wouldn't the burden of proof be on the Tories to eschew sovereignty and remain under the King's thumb?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 8:02:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Not to imply that the average voter isn't hopelessly uninformed, but so what? The actual number of people asking the question is minuscule compared to the country as a whole. Not even everyone voted in the referendum.
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 10:02:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 6:56:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Growth is not the main concern of any nation, or any business. Solvency and self preservation is.

Self preservation requires growth.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 10:02:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 10:02:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 6:56:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Growth is not the main concern of any nation, or any business. Solvency and self preservation is.

Self preservation requires growth.

Tell that to the Romans...oh wait...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 12:53:28 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 3:22:18 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/29/2016 3:14:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/29/2016 3:42:43 AM, thett3 wrote:
Two things:

First, around a third of the population did not vote. Many of the people searching for this likely didn't vote and wanted to understand what the fuss was about.

Second, not knowing exactly what something is or what it does is a pretty good reason to vote against it when that something is a bureaucracy passing laws that you must follow and that you pay for with tax money. The default position when you're asked to give up national sovereignty should be "no." The EU utterly failed to demonstrate to the people why they should be a member--to the point where many people did not understand what the EU actually did.
I can't agree with that. I think the default position, if there be one, should be the status quo. I believe stability is always to be favoured over uncertainty if it's not immediately apparent that uncertainty will bring better consequences in the long run.
To clarify this point, I was saying that stability should be favoured over uncertainty in ALL situations, not just circumstances where sovereignty is at stake.

I disagree with this entirely; long-term survivability should be favored above both. If that means uncertainty, then so be it. The question in this instance is what poses a greater threat to the long-term survival of the British people: a loss of sovereignty not through the threat of overwhelming force (a legitimate reason to surrender it via suzerainty), but through an abject diplomatic failure, or a bit of uncertainty which removes that threat. The uncertainty, imo, is far and away the better choice.

In fact, I think that countries who favor stability over uncertainty in all situations become ossified and brittle, and don't survive well. Uncertainty is necessary to make sweeping domestic changes or grand geopolitical gambles, and both of those things are necessary for survival in a dynamic, competitive world.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 12:57:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 10:02:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 6:56:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Growth is not the main concern of any nation, or any business. Solvency and self preservation is.

Self preservation requires growth.

Lol, no it doesn't. Many states lasted much longer than expansionist empires and republics by keeping themselves at a manageable, steady size and investing in other means of projecting power. Venice is the best historical example; growth actually ended up being catastrophic for the Republic, because the defense of its gains was geopolitically untenable and bled its resources.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 2:47:12 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
This thread's commenters remind me of Traub's article in Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com...

Watching the intelligentsia and their brown-nosers talk about the oh so lowly and foolishproles who just need to get with the program their """"educated betters"""" have engineered strikes me as a bit elitist.

Not that elitism is bad per se.

That is, unless the "elite" is a platoon of devil-worshipping, anti-nation globalist politicians, cronies, and their admirers.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 3:03:14 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 3:42:43 AM, thett3 wrote:
Two things:

First, around a third of the population did not vote. Many of the people searching for this likely didn't vote and wanted to understand what the fuss was about.

What's funniest is that only around 36% of 18-24 year old voters actually voted and these young punks are saying that the elderly shouldn't be allowed to vote as it's not their future anymore. Imagine contributing so dearly to your beloved nation only to have some tiddly little idiot tell you that you cannot vote anymore.


Second, not knowing exactly what something is or what it does is a pretty good reason to vote against it when that something is a bureaucracy passing laws that you must follow and that you pay for with tax money. The default position when you're asked to give up national sovereignty should be "no." The EU utterly failed to demonstrate to the people why they should be a member--to the point where many people did not understand what the EU actually did.

The burden of proof was on the Eurocrats and they dropped the ball.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 3:57:32 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 12:57:52 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/29/2016 10:02:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 6:56:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Growth is not the main concern of any nation, or any business. Solvency and self preservation is.

Self preservation requires growth.

Lol, no it doesn't. Many states lasted much longer than expansionist empires and republics by keeping themselves at a manageable, steady size and investing in other means of projecting power. Venice is the best historical example; growth actually ended up being catastrophic for the Republic, because the defense of its gains was geopolitically untenable and bled its resources.

OMFG the skepsbeast agreed with me for once.