I fear you are right, which is why I've spent the last month mostly playing Hearts of Iron IV and building Battle Cruisers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Printable View
I fear you are right, which is why I've spent the last month mostly playing Hearts of Iron IV and building Battle Cruisers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Some things I want to hear from @Idaho on:
What do McDonnell/Corbyn mean when they speak of decentralized nationalization?
What is your opinion on perhaps a majority of Labour-voting Jews holding Corbyn, and the party, to be anti-Semitic? (Ask about assumptions)
What is the Labour Party not doing that it could do to robustly process complaints and educate the membership on all vectors of (anti-)racism?
I mean the above question for its own sake, not in connection to public perception or media narrative. But having those in mind, what do you think of the conjecture that almost the entire popular perception of Labour anti-Semitism has come to be bound up with the figure of Corbyn?
When you post this way and lean on 'cool kid' detachment you remind me of this cartoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
If its the alveopalatal fricative that concerns you, it's the other end from guttural.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Both namings are in the Twitter clips, but thanks. The problem with your interpretation is that he doesn't - as in the comparison - pronounce it emphatically, in an exaggerated or mocking manner, so there's no reason to believe he was trying to call attention to it. If he wasn't trying to call attention to it but the significance is still nefarious, you could believe either that he is (*giggle*) trying to subliminally indoctrinate the Gentile population with othering microaggressions, or that his anti-Semitism manifests as an unconscious incorrect pronunciation of this name in particular. Again, some evidence from Corbyn's history with Jewish names would be probative here. Corporal evidence from British English speakers would also be helpful.Quote:
Watch the clip again.
By the way, here is an example of the ossified genealogy of the "Epstein" name. I don't know how Boris Epshteyn pronounces his last name, but I am almost certain that the orthography is phonemic. (Amusingly, most of the text-to-speech apps I tried on the Internet pronounce the base Epstein [-ain].)
That's fair. The vast majority of my awareness of Jewish names I gained in adulthood, because I wasn't really paying attention.Quote:
You really over-estimate the extent to which people in the UK are aware of "Jewishness" and how it's signified. When my cousin married a Jewish man most of the family didn't realise he was Jewish until the engagement (no church wedding), also some of his relatives arrived in kilts.
You said "problem," which has just one historically-overspecified meaning in the context of unwanted Jewish influence. I've chosen my words carefully. Perhaps you should have done the same.Quote:
Bit of a stretch from backroom mutterings to actual genocidal intent, but OK, fine, if you want to read me like that. I thought Corbyn was genocidal, though, I'd just say so.
I linked it right there where you're quoting me, as well as quoting it at length in the spoiler. ???Quote:
Silly me - I thought you were going to link to the text. Oh well: https://archive.org/details/imperial...goog/page/n274
Now - Hobson's views on Jews, whom he does not name, take up most of the latter half of a chapter titled "The Parasites of Imperialism" and whilst he does not say "Jew" he refers to a "peculiar race" (p. 64) and also to the Boer War - where he attacked Jews specifically at length in another work. Later in the same chapter he refers to the same "financiers" control of the press (p. 67), and asserts that their influence is felt also in "Berlin, Vienna and Paris" (ibid).
Are you, like, skimming my posts??????
That is incorrect, and I really can't talk sources with you if you will consistently misrepresent them.Quote:
The entire argument is built on these "financiers" being a close inter-connected group
No, you can't make that association. It's 2% of the book. From my understanding of the thesis, Hobson thought modern imperialism was basically mercantilistic because of insufficient domestic markets under industrial capitalism in Europe. He referred to financiers as "parasitic" in the sense of a dichotomy between politicians and citizens motivated by patriotism and financiers motivated by economic self-interest, which in my opinion was too limited a characterization even then. He arrived at this theory by observing that imperialism was actually an overall economic drain on the manufacturing and trading sectors of the imperial nation, and so tried to explain this acting against self-interest by identifying self-interest in a financial sector driven by raw speculation (e.g. interest income from investment). This is again too limited by not taking into account geopolitics, and anyway imperial extraction directly injected massive amounts of wealth into imperial nations in all corners and all levels of society, so he must be mistaken on one of his core economic premises. I have indeed read some of the book just for the sake of this tedious exercise, and it's possible to find both flaws and prescient insight.Quote:
Hobson has an entire section devoted to parasitic Jewish financiers - which Corbyn (by implication) thinks is "basically right".
The bottom line is that no aspect of his argument - which goes well beyond the role of financiers - is affected by anti-Semitic propositions. It's straightforward to say that Hobson was convinced of the truth and relevance of anti-Semitic ideas, but logically his arguments stand apart from it.
Why would Corbyn need to reckon with a sliver of bigotry in a (two or five-page? The length also makes a difference) foreword? Or if he should, why shouldn't he address the other, more voluminous, racisms contained in the work? Why one but not the other?Quote:
Even assuming you believe the tents of the book - and that's a big if because the argument is that the primary impetus of Imperialism is economic - you still need to confront the fact that Hobson believed the financial system was controlled by a small number of banking houses, specifically Jewish ones, who benefited even when their own country suffered. I invite those interested to read the work, from page 50 onward. It's decidedly dense and boring, but soldier on and see what I mean.
Are you going to require reckoning with Aristotle or Plato's fundamental sexism in the first word about their philosophy?
I remain unconvinced that it is normally the province of a foreword writer - as opposed at least to an introductory commentator - to warn the reader about all the author's bigotries and insecurities.
There is nothing on that page, or in the book from what I can find, on Zionists. What are you referring to?Quote:
The book only surfaced this year.
Here's him on "Zionists: https://archive.org/details/imperial...goog/page/n274
The nastiest one so far.
I quoted and bolded this in the post of mine you're apparently responding to and it is the only anti-Semitic connection in the book.Quote:
I refer you to page 65, Hobson takes up the issues of the Transvaal (Boer War) and says just before that, "There is not a war, a revolution, an anarchist assassination, or any other public shock, which is not gainful to these men."
Now, we've already established that "these men" are of the "peculiar race" so this is basically Rothschild conspiracy 101 now.
Either you have not read the chapter or you assumed I had not.
Please stop misrepresenting sources to suit your narratives.
Ding ding.Quote:
When I was doing my Undergrad and studying Cicero I was given some excellent advice by one of the professors, "You don't have to like the people you study."
Quote:
That is, more or less, what I would write in the forward - although I'd be a little more polite.
It's not easy to trust you, but if you were to write that in any foreword to any book by or about Churchill, that would be transgressive enough to earn you some lefty bonafides. I doubt many publishers would print it.
Noticing racism is not racism. But is Corbyn racist toward non-whites on account of their absence from the foreword?Quote:
Is Corbyn racist against non-whites? Difficult question - quite possibly given that he seems to insist on seeing them all as the perpetual victims of whites.
I don't understand your question. You're suggesting someone who values partisan solidarity to the point of ignoring bad behavior would only become that way once in a position of power? It's more the other way around.Quote:
So you accept Corbyn tolerates antisemitism from "fellow travellers" today? How do you explain his penchant for the same prior to becoming leader?
Please don't misunderstand me. Corbyn's leadership here and in other matters has been dreadful, and I think it's because he can't transition into that mindset of addressing demands by competing stakeholders and taking criticism judiciously - as a politician does/should. And I don't think it is outrageous to raise the possibility that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. I just think the way you construct your case on the most trivial and decontextualized examples, and with peripheral disdain toward anti-racism, is motivated by partisan considerations, and so fails to be credible on its own grounds - because it's not made to be. Which is to say, ironically, that when Corbyn underperforms to the anti-Semitism controversy by acting like everyone who has a problem is his enemy, he's probably fixating on people like you.
Ugh, this study makes the fatal mistake of constructing some very loaded questions on anti-Israel attitudes ("anti-Zionist anti-Semitism") and then lumping them in with "Judeophobic antisemitism." That is, it starts with the premise that all the former attitudes are in themselves anti-Semitic in nature and can all be analyzed together. The quality of the The far-left holding an elevated proportion of anti-Israel attitudes will inevitably skew the result against them in a way that diverges with other studies. As the analysis points out, "This finding [of elevated anti-Semitism on the very left-wing] is mostly accounted for by the proportion of ‘very left-wing’ respondents holding one, two, or three antisemitic views. When we look at the percentage of respondents holding four or more antisemitic views, there is no clear relationship with one’s position on the political spectrum. I'm confident that separating "anti-Zionist antisemitism" attitudes from Judeophobic attitudes in the design would neutralize the study's clickbaity finding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
The 2017 Jewish Policy Research study treated anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attitudes as analytically distinct before looking at the overlap, where it was found that while most of those holding at least one anti-Semitic attitude hold at least one anti-Israel attitude, the reverse is not true: most of those endorsing an anti-Israel attitude did not endorse any anti-Semitic attitude. The attitude questions/statements on Israel were also more numerous and better constructed than in the Campaign Against Antisemitism study. Compare former with latter:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I have no opinions on the particulars of the UK order of battle, but this is real silly. If you think there is a future in which the United States invades the UK to slaughter its people or nuclear powers decide on an exchange, then your politics are already a joke and you should be stocking a LMOE bunker out in the highlands.Quote:
We will not be fighting another war like Afghanistan, unless we specifically go back to Afghanistan. We're much more likely to end up fighting something like a genuine mechanised war against, say, Iran, or we're going to fight China or Russia. We're already relatively close to neutralising intercontinental ballistic missiles and once that happens MAD will cease to apply.
At that point it's going to be rearm or die, and don't think there's no future where the US invades Canada or blockades Australia, because there might be.
The only thing the British Isles have needed for external territorial defense in a thousand years are A2AD techniques. Forget about power projection to Iran; there is no security justification. A PM who inserted Britain into such a scenario should be strung up TBH.
This is what I've been arguing for years. Corbyn is inherently, unconsciously, prejudiced, it's the best explanation for why he so often fails to recognise the prejudice in others. It also explains how he can utter antisemitic tropes and decry antisemitism in the same breath.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
As regards Jewish name pronunciation in the UK - pretty much every newspaper ran this - and twitter blew up. I don't really know what else to tell you - it's not how English people would say the name having read it, it's not how his name was ever said on the BBC
The British historically distinguish between "Anglo-Jewish" people who, by the 20th Century, were similar to "Anglo Catholics" and continental Jewish people, or Jews in Mandatory Palestine.Quote:
That's fair. The vast majority of my awareness of Jewish names I gained in adulthood, because I wasn't really paying attention.
Ref, the troubled history of the Jewish Brigade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade
In this case a Germanic pronunciation of Epstein's name is a form of "de-Anglicisation" - hence people getting worked up.
It does not mean "genocide", if I had said "final solution" you'd have been on firmer ground. I said "old men in back rooms" which is long-standing shorthand for racist or jingoistic sentiment, pre-Holocaust.Quote:
You said "problem," which has just one historically-overspecified meaning in the context of unwanted Jewish influence. I've chosen my words carefully. Perhaps you should have done the same.
When I clicked that link I got a video of Trump talking about Obama's "dynasty" and I don't recall the spoiler being there. Did you edit that part of the post?Quote:
I linked it right there where you're quoting me, as well as quoting it at length in the spoiler. ???
Are you, like, skimming my posts??????
I disagree. The chapter is divided into three sections, the first section deals with the military and industrialists as "parasites", the second and third sections deal with the financial system, their control of the papers and the state through financial coercion etc - that section begins by characterising those financiers as Jewish, and part of a pan-European Jewish network. My interpretation is that having defined those financiers as Jewish Hobson takes it as read that it is this same group he is discussing in the following sections. Note especially the reference to "anarchist assassination" like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the fact that thse financiers profit from any "shock" to their home country, such as losing a war and suffering hyper-inflation.Quote:
That is incorrect, and I really can't talk sources with you if you will consistently misrepresent them.
The problem is not that Hobson's argument relies on the Jewishness of financiers, and you are correct that it does not, the problem is that by characterising the financiers as Jewish and then demonising them he demonises Jews and makes them a scapegoat for a nation's ills. His academic word legitimises what will become the Nazi narrative of the Jewish betrayal of Germany before, during and after World War I.Quote:
No, you can't make that association. It's 2% of the book. From my understanding of the thesis, Hobson thought modern imperialism was basically mercantilistic because of insufficient domestic markets under industrial capitalism in Europe. He referred to financiers as "parasitic" in the sense of a dichotomy between politicians and citizens motivated by patriotism and financiers motivated by economic self-interest, which in my opinion was too limited a characterization even then. He arrived at this theory by observing that imperialism was actually an overall economic drain on the manufacturing and trading sectors of the imperial nation, and so tried to explain this acting against self-interest by identifying self-interest in a financial sector driven by raw speculation (e.g. interest income from investment). This is again too limited by not taking into account geopolitics, and anyway imperial extraction directly injected massive amounts of wealth into imperial nations in all corners and all levels of society, so he must be mistaken on one of his core economic premises. I have indeed read some of the book just for the sake of this tedious exercise, and it's possible to find both flaws and prescient insight.
The bottom line is that no aspect of his argument - which goes well beyond the role of financiers - is affected by anti-Semitic propositions. It's straightforward to say that Hobson was convinced of the truth and relevance of anti-Semitic ideas, but logically his arguments stand apart from it.
Corbyn would need to reckon with the racism of his subject - he apparently didn't. I find that more than troubling.Quote:
Why would Corbyn need to reckon with a sliver of bigotry in a (two or five-page? The length also makes a difference) foreword? Or if he should, why shouldn't he address the other, more voluminous, racisms contained in the work? Why one but not the other?
When I studied Aristotle one of the first things we dealt with was his sexism and penchant for teenage girls. Again, we come up against Corbyn's "basically right" comment.Quote:
Are you going to require reckoning with Aristotle or Plato's fundamental sexism in the first word about their philosophy?
I would say that the purpose of the forward is exactly to warn the reader of the prejudices of the esteemed author, the more so the more esteemed they are. Think of it as a sort of intellectual inoculation. For example, if you pick up a copy of Edward Gibbons's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire the forward usually contains something about his prejudice against Arabs and their unfitness for democratic government.Quote:
I remain unconvinced that it is normally the province of a foreword writer - as opposed at least to an introductory commentator - to warn the reader about all the author's bigotries and insecurities.
Sorry, wrong link.Quote:
There is nothing on that page, or in the book from what I can find, on Zionists. What are you referring to?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ism-row-labour
This is "Ironygate", another Corbyn blunder - the most antisemitic thing he's personally said - and I don't buy his defence, it's not applicable.
As I said, he first defines "financiers" as Jewish, then he demonises them. I therefore read "Jewish financier" when he says "financier". Note that he actually avoids using the word "Jew" entirely, the entire chapter is coded.Quote:
I quoted and bolded this in the post of mine you're apparently responding to and it is the only anti-Semitic connection in the book.
Please stop misrepresenting sources to suit your narratives.
You don't trust me because you don't trust me. Nothing I can do about that. Try a forum search and read what I've written on Churchill.Quote:
It's not easy to trust you, but if you were to write that in any foreword to any book by or about Churchill, that would be transgressive enough to earn you some lefty bonafides. I doubt many publishers would print it.
Quote:
Noticing racism is not racism. But is Corbyn racist toward non-whites on account of their absence from the foreword?
I think Corbyn infantelises non-whites.
No, I'm suggesting Corbyn has been up to his neck in this for years - the current defence is that he needs to "get things done" but the fact is even as a nobody, which he has been for decades, he associated with horrible people.Quote:
I don't understand your question. You're suggesting someone who values partisan solidarity to the point of ignoring bad behavior would only become that way once in a position of power? It's more the other way around.
It's a deep, visceral, hatred, deep, deep in my bones. It's an association between Corbyn's Leftist politics, his Marxism, his cozying up to Russia and his antisemitism which represent all the reasons I loathe many Left-Wing politicians. Most of all its the hypocrisy of a man who claims to be an "antiracist" and yet has an antisemitic rap sheet to make a skinhead blush.Quote:
Please don't misunderstand me. Corbyn's leadership here and in other matters has been dreadful, and I think it's because he can't transition into that mindset of addressing demands by competing stakeholders and taking criticism judiciously - as a politician does/should. And I don't think it is outrageous to raise the possibility that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. I just think the way you construct your case on the most trivial and decontextualized examples, and with peripheral disdain toward anti-racism, is motivated by partisan considerations, and so fails to be credible on its own grounds - because it's not made to be. Which is to say, ironically, that when Corbyn underperforms to the anti-Semitism controversy by acting like everyone who has a problem is his enemy, he's probably fixating on people like you.
Eh.Quote:
Ugh, this study makes the fatal mistake of constructing some very loaded questions on anti-Israel attitudes ("anti-Zionist anti-Semitism") and then lumping them in with "Judeophobic antisemitism." That is, it starts with the premise that all the former attitudes are in themselves anti-Semitic in nature and can all be analyzed together. The quality of the The far-left holding an elevated proportion of anti-Israel attitudes will inevitably skew the result against them in a way that diverges with other studies. As the analysis points out, "This finding [of elevated anti-Semitism on the very left-wing] is mostly accounted for by the proportion of ‘very left-wing’ respondents holding one, two, or three antisemitic views. When we look at the percentage of respondents holding four or more antisemitic views, there is no clear relationship with one’s position on the political spectrum. I'm confident that separating "anti-Zionist antisemitism" attitudes from Judeophobic attitudes in the design would neutralize the study's clickbaity finding.
The 2017 Jewish Policy Research study treated anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attitudes as analytically distinct before looking at the overlap, where it was found that while most of those holding at least one anti-Semitic attitude hold at least one anti-Israel attitude, the reverse is not true: most of those endorsing an anti-Israel attitude did not endorse any anti-Semitic attitude. The attitude questions/statements on Israel were also more numerous and better constructed than in the Campaign Against Antisemitism study. Compare former with latter:
The point I made was that MAD is what has brought us peace, not social development, not the EU. Anti-missile technology will ultimately make ICBMS and hence Strategic Nukes, obsolete one day.Quote:
I have no opinions on the particulars of the UK order of battle, but this is real silly. If you think there is a future in which the United States invades the UK to slaughter its people or nuclear powers decide on an exchange, then your politics are already a joke and you should be stocking a LMOE bunker out in the highlands.
The only thing the British Isles have needed for external territorial defense in a thousand years are A2AD techniques. Forget about power projection to Iran; there is no security justification. A PM who inserted Britain into such a scenario should be strung up TBH.
I said nothing about Nuclear exchange, or the US "slaughtering" people in the UK. I simple observed that war between the US and the UK is conceivable, the check on that is a combination of the UK having a credible military and our shared culture.
As regards war with Iran - that circumstance is conceivable if Iran tries to annex Iraq or goes to war with Saudi Arabia, as this would threaten oil imports.
In such a circumstance the UK needs to be able to deploy without American assistance (because American assistance can never be relied upon, and should in fact be discounted in most circumstances). So, assuming we need to go to war with Iran over Iraq we'd need to ally with the French and to be a credible actor in said war the UK would need to deploy two full mechanised divisions - which we have on paper, but not in reality.
The more I learn about my country's "managed decline" the more I want to hang every politician thats crawled out of the pit since thatcher's term.
Your post is a crime against brevity - one of the most underrated virtues in any discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
No idea what Corbyn means about nationalisation. Didn't listen or read about it.
Jews find anti-Semitism wherever they look. There is a fair bit about, and there is plenty of prejudice against myriad other groups that gets ignored - and definitely gets ignored by Jews - especially right leaning Jews. Right leaning Jews couldn't give a toss about any other group. They only believe that *they* should not be prejudiced against.
As to why has the right wing agenda chosen to identify the labour leader with anti semitism and repeat the same message again and again, even if many examples are just hearsay or fluff. Keep repeating, keep personalising.
Those EU Nationals, coming into our country, putting a stop to our homegrown terrorists with Narwhal horns. The nerve of them...!
Full praise for Lukasz.
We need a second amendment to ensure the right of all citizens to posess weaponizable taxidermies.
You are referring to the right to keep and arm bears, yes? I believe the Silliest Court of the US has ruled that the bears in question must be living.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
As to a second amendment, by the way, ought you not to promulgate a first amendment first?
You know...something along the lines of making no laws that respect religious establishments; prohibiting free exercise; freedom of speech when on a bridge or printing press; the right to assemble peace; and government by grievance.
...just a thought.
I want to continue the joke but I dearly want a first amendment here. Most of the censoring judiciary is in scotland rather than my neck of the woods but I have no faith that it will stay there.
Our greatest advantage over the UK system of democratic-republican government is our written Constitution which forms the basis of our system. Our single biggest disadvantage, when compared to the UK system, is our written Constitution which constrains adaptation by government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Ain't nothin' perfect when in comes to governance. The comment attributed to Washington (probably apocryphally) comparing government to fire comes to mind...
Here's a mind bender for you - as the "Mother of Parliaments" the UK cannot have a written Constitution. All the other Parliaments in the Anglosphere derive their ultimate autonomy from an Act of Westminster (in some cases, THE Act). Their Constitutions have ultimate authority because they were enacted in Westminster, the "Ultimate Parliament" and from this do they derive their magic - much in the same way the US Constitution derives its magic from the Founders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
However, Westminster cannot enact any law which binds a future Parliament, nor can it bind the monarch without their consent, and the monarch cannot bind Parliament.
So, you see, our ultimate weakness is also our greatest strength - we are thee fountainhead of modern democracy.*
*Someone will now argue this is nonsense - but all magic is nonsense to those who do not believe.
And what happens when a government ignores all non-legal constraints? Most of the restrictions on what a government does is due to custom, tradition, accepted boundaries, etc. All of that is justified by the theory that all authority is derived from a constitutional monarch that does not actively exercise decision making power. What if a government ignores all of that, and does whatever it likes where it is unconstrained by law? What if a government goes even further, and looks to change the law where even these rare legal constraints exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
If you are voting these Tories into power, I fail to see how the above you describe can be a strength.
THAT is why we have the 2nd amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
We used to have countermeasures in the lords. Asquith declawed them in 1909 by removing their veto, atlee defanged them in 1949 by reducing thier right to delay to a year and Blair decapitated it; in 1999 by removing hereditary peers, packing it with his men, and in 2005 by seperating it from the judiciary, finishing the job in 2009 through his successor by establishing the foriegn abberation on the english system that is the now activist and likely to be similarly defanged supreme court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Now our only countermeasure is the queen and, as much as I love her, she hasnt done any countering in decades.
None of this is a strength and you can thank the ever more radical end of our political system every time this mess gets in the hands of those you dislike.
What happens when people stop believing in magic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Also - who said I was voting Tory? I didn't at the last two elections.
Plaid Cymru then? You sneaky devil you.... :creep:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I know you're American, but Devon isn't in Wales :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Is it? Oddly even the Supreme Court didn't view this as the case until really recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You could argue that the 9th Amendment in some respects covers it - the second always was for the Militias of the individual states and the 9th leaves the individual states to decide gun policy.
~:smoking:
lol. Was trying to come up with a party that was wildly unlikely to actually get your vote. I actually have most of Blighty's geography pretty decently squared off in my head. At least the more macro stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
It would be Mebyon Kernow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I believe there was Kenethlegek Kernow too, but they dissolved and now work as a pressure group.
Its all greek to me.
Devon also isn't in Cornwall - and we've covered how getting that wrong can lead to Warhammer 40K levels of violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
And pasties are legal in Cornwall but not in Devon? What do their exotic dancers sport?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Pasties are legal here, but they have to be top crimped. Strippers are not really legal, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Historical depiction of the Great Pasty War:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBgXH7eyRo4
You can tell the Cornish, they're deformed and green.
God in his infinite wisdom put the river Tamar in place for a reason.
Call me somewhat biased, but the Government really needs to undertake a "Highland Clearance" approach to the place and redistribute the land to those who are loyal. In the long run, it makes sense.
~:smoking:
You also gone into how your were born in Devon but is Cornish. You also said about the different boundaries and how parts of the Kingdom(?) of Cornwall lies in Devon, etc etc etc. Though with your last post, sounds like you identify more with Devon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Not after arguing with you. ~:mecry:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50679252Quote:
Mr Neil said that no broadcaster "can compel a politician to be interviewed".
But he added: "Leaders' interviews have been a key part of the BBC's prime-time election coverage for decades.
"We do them, on your behalf, to scrutinise and hold to account those who would govern us. That is democracy.
"We have always proceeded in good faith that the leaders would participate. And in every election they have. All of them. Until this one."
Mr Neil then listed the questions he wanted the prime minister to answer.
These include whether he can be trusted to deliver on his promises for the NHS - and keeping the health service "off the table" in any post-Brexit trade talks with the US.
Mr Neil said he would also ask the PM about his claim that he has always been an opponent of austerity, another "question of trust".
He ended the monologue by saying: "The prime minister of our nation will, at times, have to stand up to President Trump, President Putin, President Xi of China.
"So it was surely not expecting too much that he spend half an hour standing up to me."
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon, Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson and Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage have all faced a grilling by Mr Neil.
Anyone here voting Conservative on the 12th?
Assuming there isnt a brexit party on the ballot... considering my area, yes probably.
is this a genuine question, or posturing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
yes.
The clear following question is, "Despite the prospective Conservative PM's unwillingness to face scrutiny?". Ie. does Johnson's refusal to face the toughest of the interviewers, which every other major candidate has submitted to, affect your opinion of his fitness to be PM? Neil has set out a number of questions that he'd like to put to Johnson, which already gives the latter an advantage over the other candidates, who had no prior explicit preparation. Should Johnson answer these questions under Neil's probing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
1. Born in Devon, family from Hampshire/Surrey and more distantly Wales/Sweden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
2. Parts of the Duchy of Cornwall lie in Devon. Devon and Cornwall collectively made up the Kingdom of Dummonia in the Sub-Roman period. You may also be confused by my, at some point, having said that there were Cornishmen in Devon until the Reformation, which is not to say Cornwall was in Devon. The boundary has been the River Tamar since 936 AD.
3. Anyone who lives in Devon identifies more with Devon than Cornwall and vice versa.
It's all mostly in good fun, until someone starts a punchup.
Honestly - though - if you and Monty are both miss-reading my posts to this degree I need to consider writing in a language other than English because, frankly, you'd apparently do better putting my Latin through Google translate.
Wait - have I suffered a head trauma? Have I spent the last two or three years writing in Latin without realising?
O.
I think we've all agreed he "should" do the interview - I haven't seen anyone defend him not doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Furunculus has said that the whole Brexit business should have been the prerogative of the executive, without Parliamentary oversight. Meaning the biggest issue of the election should be without constitutional scrutiny. Neil has said the biggest issue with Johnson is trustworthiness. Should the PM be allowed greater executive power without exposing him to scrutiny? Johnson has shown that he wants more of the former, and he's also shown that he's avoiding the latter as far as he can get away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I believe this question has already been answered:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053800043
"Yes, i do think it will reflect badly on him, and he should do it - not least because his opponents went on the show on the understanding that they would all face such a grilling."
No, your serial misquoting of me continues:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I did not say brexit should have been the prerogative of the executive as if this was my opinion.
I pointed out that as a constitutional principle conducting relations with foreign powers is a function of the executive.
For the eminently sensible reason that negotiation by committee is universally stupid notion.
The UK's Brexit ambassador to the US resigns because she has better things to do than peddle the government's lies about what Brexit involves. Yup, that's the reason she gave.
I got to admit when I was voting the other day, I was looking at the slip and I was like "I don't want to vote for any of you". I wish I was in a constitutionality with half-decent choices, like my neighbouring ones who happened to attract the talent.
The incumbent is a blue Labour who lives 300 miles away and primary the reason I have never voted Labour in a general election.
As things stand, looking through various news sources, the Conservatives will easily win a majority and Brexit will be delivered most probably in the beginning of next year. However, I've seen a lot of surprises with Brexit in the past 3 years - so I'll wait and see until the government is formed.
The songs are now coming out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI87PRgIKks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JevH1eZF75w
Truth, competence and accountability no longer matters. "Because I want to" is now the decisive factor. If any Brit tries to take some kind of moral high ground over reason and logic, ask them if they voted Tory in this election. If they did, ask them whether reason, logic and all that mattered to them when they decided to vote for Johnson as PM.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Yes.
i gave my reasons and logic already They stand, as does my choice.
Brexit will still be "in progress" for the next 10 years. The idea that a country can break a treaty and a comprehensive set of laws, systems and regulations and then enact a whole bunch of replacements quickly is pure brexiteer fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
For the populace, it is getting "Brexit done" and by "Brexit done" is get the divorced paper signed. You still have to start dividing the estates and kids, but at least it is done/official.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Your apparant belief that this is some immutable law of the universe is what is fantastical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
The land speed of a parliament is limited only by its willingness to move, when it doesnt want to do something within it power: delays abound, seasons pass, lives are lost to the attrition of time. When it does want to do something; no matter how fucking stupid, unpopular, self destructive and futile that thing may be, it will be legislated and enforcement attempted at distressing velocity.
Similarly negociations go as fast as both sides allow them to go; limited only by how it costs them to delay and how much they believe they can gain for doing so. These calculations are key and a lopsided balance of will to wait out the other lead to the most important and far reaching treaty of the 20th century being agreed to after three days of talking in a train car.
The shitshow of the last three years was because of one side's unwillingness to apply to the other a cost to delay; the EU thus had little to lose (that thier political class cared about at least) by delaying while the potential of the british political class to capitulate presented a great gain.
The future negociations will hopefully be different, though thanks to may's deal the EU will posess much more breathing room than they have any business having, not to mention £39 bn of our money in thier war chest. We can only hope the next tory majority will have some balls and refuse to enact it.
We'll only still be here in ten years if we allow ourselves to be, and as much of a pack of traitorous backstabbing bastards the majority of our current politicians might be, they wont survive two whole election cycles if they allow us to be so bogged down.
Idaho is right - this whole Brexit mess does not end after the leaving is done and dusted, it will take a long time to unravel and get to the same point it is right now. I've studied the uncodified constitution of the UK extensively, getting together a comprehensive set of laws to replace European Laws will be an absolute gutter mess to sort out.
And it will take a significant period of time.
Still blaming Remainers and the EU. And calling those who disagree with you "traitorous backstabbing bastards".Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
beskar is also right.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
re the future: it's almost like we dont have 800+ years of legal evolution to draw on, not least eased by simply adopting eu law into uk canon before continueing on.
no tabula rasa required.
In addition to what furunculus said; this assumes I want to get to the same point it is now. There is much bad in the EU's regulations and laws that we will be better rid of and those good enough to keep should be put into law the old fasioned way; through parliament's processes as they should have to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
I dont blame the EU for acting sensibly in persuing its goals, as loathsome as those goals may be, nor do I blame the remainers for being remainers, again as loathsome as the goals of such are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I suppose I do have to moderate my catagorization somewhat as not all of the ones I was thinking of are technically traitorous backstabbing bastards; the lib dems who invited verhoffstadt to speak at thier party conference are frontstabbing bastards, the Tories who were voted in on pledges of delivering brexit only to rebel once boris came into power are backstabbing bastards, the labour-ites that want to put that front bench in charge of the country are simply bastards and the group of tories that worked with may in an attempt to ensure our capitulation are full traitorous backstabbing bastards.
I said this in a moment of tiredness hence the part where I reffered to my wishes over the needs of law. While I am more lucid I would like to elaborate; now, its true it will take much time and effort but I dont see this as some sort of "brexit in process" imposition I see this as the backlog to be cleared now we have resumed proper function. A backlog that will be cleared as fast as parliament allows it to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
This is normalcy; what we pay them to do in the first place, and the outsourcing to foreign lawmaking of the last 20 years is the true abberation.
There's no reason to view this as a crisis; as furunculus said there is a fix of a blanket "we're keeping it" bill, personally I wouldnt want it beyond a "while we figure out what we want" measure because I dont see all of it as worth keeping, I suspect much of the populace and possibly even the next parliament may share the sentiment.
A second thing to note in lucidity:
Good of you to acknowlege the status of May's wets as EU/remainer assets, as mentioned I blame the traitors for being traitorous backstabbing bastards; not the opposition that are willing to exploit the traitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Using the turncoats is just how the game is played, bile over not refusing them is futile, we could only wish there were some going the other way.
The UK is a floozy, fantasising about fanciful trade packages it could have if it just became single again and divorces the EU.
The UK is a very varied place with all kinds of wacky hopes and motivations.
The biggest triumph of brexit is the super rich who can dodge the BEPS legislation the EU is pushing. The media owners, dodgy foreign cleptocrats and hedge funds being the main concentrations of those benefiting... Ooh look at that! The very same people who have managed to convince most of the population that they are fighting for their great British freedom.
It's not even subtle.
It's not that easy to cut, paste and move on. In fact, it's worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
800+ years of legal evolution were done without anything requiring it to be done in the same vein as another set of parallel / regulatory law set, which has changed every single aspect of lawmaking in the United Kingdom for the past 50 years.
When your last 50 years were done in tandem with another entity to work on this, this is not going to be solved in the next 5-10 years, absolutely no chance. And again, since the UK constitution is uncodified, unraveling a set of laws that are scattered throughout the whole country is another mess to deal with. Legal scholars are probably stocking up on Red Bulls and coffee supplies, knowing the amount of work required after Brexit is done.
sure, all this may be true.
and still it will be done.
...What makes you think we cared? Do you think 17 million would have voted differently based on their understanding of the motivations of the ERG and the like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
To abandon your goal because someone else's motivation for the same outcome is different to yours, its a rather bizzare way of thinking.
Isn't BEPS pretty much about forcing everyone else to accept UK standards, as opposed to us raising ours?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
EU rules won't stop offshore entities whatsoever. Foundations and Trusts will continue on... If you can't beat them join them - I'm tempted t start one!Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
~:smoking:
Sure - it will be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Except that it will be done at a massive lost business opportunity due to legal incertainty / confusion, public administration complications, frivolous lawsuits due to said confusion and an overall uncertainty that will roll over at least 5-10 years. That will be a very high price to pay.
Versus being rolled progressively further into a nascent federal state that has never had public consent.... Yes, please, with vigour, anx twice on sundays.
The only argument i can see you are making is that we should have done this pre-lisbon, or even pre-Maastricht
I completely agree that the EU is a ropey organisation. But it's a bland, dull, gravy train type, not some menacing monster out to subvert our honest British pluck. It does a pretty good, and cheap, job of the bureaucracy. It's fine to vote for an exit and to manage that exit well. But none of this is happening. We are getting a total mess supported by fools for the benefit of an elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Brexit and Johnson are the British political equivalent of the rise of flat earth and anti vaxxers.
It can't help but reinforce the dichotomy that the left want to build and the right only know how to destroy. As though the mere arbitrary desire not to be in the European Union could be justified at any cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
conserve, dear boy. conserve... ;)
This is a gross distortion of the facts and a slanderous attack on those here who voted to leave the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
For one thing, Brexit is not a Left/Right issue - our Right-Wing Prime Minister and the Hard-Left Leader of the Opposition are both highly Euro-sceptic and until 1992 Euro-scepticism was primarily a Left-Wing position.
You really need to stop projecting your own malign politics onto our malign politics. Just because we speak English doesn't mean we're much more like you than the French are.
Boris Johnson won't do an Andrew Neil interview unlike the other leaders, and now Jeremy Vine says that Johnson strung him along about a likely interview before saying that he won't, unlike the other leaders who have done so.
And you know what, this lack of accountability will make no difference whatsoever to those who continue to vote Tory anyway. I bet Johnson can cancel PMQs and other ways of holding the government to account, and these Tory voters would not care.
This is performative outrage.
We deal with the political system we have, imperfect politicians included.
Do i launch great skyward skeins of shock and anger when i find out that most of corbyns front bench dont trust him to be in charge of a playmobil toyset?
“oh don't worry, the mechanisms of the state will move into a defensive posture...”
i realise your get out cllause is that you don't like corbyn eigher, but then what...?
your problem isnt boris as a creature, it is that the vision he is selling is somehow winning, but all you have left as a counter is outrage.
yes, i take note of your outrage, but boris will advance most ideas i like and poison at birth most ideas i don't like... So he gets my vote.
If only Brexit wasn't a facet in the election. If only it had been completed and there wasn't just one party stating they'd complete Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Which is better? 5 bad years and Brexit occurring or someone else and no Brexit - this is the first time the British public have been asked for their opinion in the last 30 years. It is a very poor choice.
~:smoking:
Shouldn't Johnson's deal have been subjected to full scrutiny in the last Parliament then? There were mechanisms for dealing with this legislation. Why did Johnson bypass them, and why is it deemed correct to bypass them? After all, as you've said before, we vote for individual MPs, not party leaders. So the last Parliament should have been deemed as fit for purpose as any other.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
So if Johnson deems all scrutiny to be undesirable, and he wins a majority, does it mean that all media and Parliamentary scrutiny should be dispensed with? He has intimated it in his manifesto, and his past actions indicate that he's open to doing whatever he's not legally blocked from doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
If in the future someone wins an election with a tight majority and then removes the rights of those opposing them, will this also be justified as they've won the argument? If a bare majority of the electorate supports removing the rights of the bare minority, will this be justified as they've won the argument? What lines should not be crossed by a Parliamentary majority?
Ultimately, Pan,' that will depend on your electorate. If the voters tolerate such behavior, then it will become the norm. If enough of your pols become convinced that their districts will can them if they don't allow for the opposition to perform its traditional "scrutiny" role, then they will make sure it happens. If they are convinced that the voters won't do much more than complain, but pull the lever for them anyway, then the pols will let scrutiny efforts wither. The primary objective of most politicians is winning re-election personally. It always comes down to that as the real leverage upon them to do their jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I do wish he was pushed harder, I also wish he didnt have the luxury of not having to be scrutinied to be elected, but his opposition is utterly fucking useless and thats one thing you cant blame him for.
So... Remind me again why you're surprised people are voting for the only party offering to deliver Brexit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
There are certain mechanisms allowing scrutiny, independent of politicians. That's what Johnson has been dodging. Shouldn't it matter to you that he's been dodging said scrutiny? The media, particularly the more rigorous elements, are supposed to be able to hold politicians of all colours accountable, by allowing well briefed and trained journalists to question politicians on current affairs. Unlike your average voter, the better journalists won't be fobbed off with meaningless catchphrases, such as Johnson's encounter with Eddie Mair. If other leaders are willing to endure such scrutiny, but Johnson consistently avoids them, even to the extent of hiding to avoid questions (as happened today, and had happened in the past), shouldn't that matter to would be Tory voters? At what point do you say, this man is not fit to be PM?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Does this mean that you'd vote for a party with a literal dog as a leader, as long as the party of said canine promises to pass Brexit? If said party promises to pass Brexit, but uses its majority to pass a load of other stuff to lock down their permanent control, would you say it was worth it? NB. the latter is in the Tory manifesto, and the last two Tory PMs have tried it in government, only to have courts overrule their attempts and restore sovereignty to Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
That is the system weve got. If we had had input many years ago my future wouldn't have been ruined in this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But here we are with the choices we've got. Corbyn is objectively a worse option and in my constituency there is no third party option - thanks to first past the post.
~:smoking:
Let's just remind ourselves of the leader polling, both positive and negative...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Who is coming out best/least worst?
Are you trying to get me to speak up for Corbyn again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
i return to my previous point:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
"i realise your get out clause is that you don't like corbyn either, but then what...?"
[you] have a particular problem with boris, finding him particularly objectionable.
however, the [electorate] seem to disagree, rating boris considerably higher in positives and lower in negatives than either corbyn or swinson.
and - if you were honest with yourself - i think it is this fact more than anything else that you find outrageous.
I believe in all politicians being adequately scrutinised, whether the electorate likes them or not. Do you agree?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
What does Brexit do to achieve a better life for Britons, if that is the aim? It is not the aim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Euroskepticism doesn't entail leaving the EU for above all the psychic pleasure of not existing within the EU.
Exit politics today are overwhelmingly not within the left. For those to whom it is a matter of left-wing politics, they are mistaken in their narrative; the EU and its rules do, if anything, more to restrain the far-right than the far-left. The British electorate itself is ultimately the only impediment to a Lexiteer Red Labour paradise. There is also the more roundabout Lexiteer theory of 'Nach Brexit, uns', but holding out for social devastation is not a credible model for building power. I hope the reasons are obvious, both practical and moral.
Regarding the favorability of Boris Johnson, I'm sure to most people he is more likeable than Jeremy Corbyn in video. "Boris Johnson is charming" is Boris Johnson's whole public persona, right? Corbyn's public persona - I don't know, does he have one in particular?
On that subject I invite you all to read this about Johnson. Much of it we all probably know, but the overall composition is worthwhile and I have to say the white supremacist stuff threw me. Read the whole to continue. (BTW Furunculus, many of the character traits identified in Johnson reflect the kind of sneering larkishness that I dislike most as it sometimes appears in your presentation.)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
When reading I passed the name Taki Theodoracopulos and thought, "Taki? Like, from the Nazi site?" But yes indeed, the founder of TakiMag was a long-time friend and subordinate of Boris Johnson at the Spectator (which willingly published Taki's material for decades and does to this day, it should be noted.) If you lazy bastards didn't read the article, here are some Taki-related excerpts:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Bonus I found out about for Seamus and other Americans: The American Conservative was founded by Taki and Pat Buchanan, the latter of whom was also a cofounder of Takimag. A shame those decrepit old louts are still alive.
i feel entirely at liberty to employ the Panonnian defense:
I don't really respect much Boris much either - to use the vernacular he is an 'unserious' person.
Now, this doesn't really matter much as a politician, but I was dismayed to find that he had been made Foreign Secretary.
As a person that believes in an activist Foreign Policy with a Ministry of Offence configured for power projection, I do understand that this is not a fashionable view these days.
So both on the merits of what I personally want as well as what the public expect, I require a Foreign Secretary to be very serious about his role.
Both in the way they conduct themselves, and with the diligence with which they apply themselves to the role!
Boris failed on both these counts.
Likewise as PM - i don't want or value a 'character' in the role, not least as they will be the person directing the activities of the Foreign Office and Offence.
So he is not my choice, my enormous preference would have been for Gove.
But - what is my choice?
Boris does at least act like a 'leader' rather than a manager - giving subordinates their head to run their brief rather than trying to micro-manage. This is how he successfully ran London, and hopefully his model for the future.
And his government will "get brexit done" and then continue to organise british society along lines of which I broadly approve...
...Where Corbyn would do the opposite, in organising society in a direction that i deem utterly wrong. A deeply serious man whose serious ideas I fear!
"BTW Furunculus, many of the character traits identified in Johnson reflect the kind of sneering larkishness that I dislike most as it sometimes appears in your presentation"
You get what you merit. Your sneering conviction in presuming the moral inferiority of people who hold views you do not share deserves challenge.
The Tories tactics this election are vile, and a foretaste. Fake news + avoiding scrutiny and.... er.. repeat "get brexit done" (which as we've all agreed is a lie as brexit will take years).
... Not to mention a servile and infiltrated BBC (political editor is a Tory party member) and a press that is rabidly brexit due to being owned by tax dodging billionaires.