Between Autocratic Russia and Autocratic China, ... Cool.
Between Europeans and Democratic Values, ... not so much.
Apocalypse Tuesday
- Thread starter Tranquillus in Exile
- Start date
Between Autocratic Russia and Autocratic China, ... Cool.
Between Europeans and Democratic Values, ... not so much.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
The US was formed by all the states within our borders and a couple outside of them; whereas the EU is trying to take numerous CONTRIES and hoping the different Governments will surrender their individuality.
It seems like some of those Countries have decided that they don't want to surrender that individuality.
The only 'Borders' were Colonial Borders between the different Colonies. They surrendered their autonomy to create a larger Union of the various colonies.
European States are unions of various little Kingdoms that came together. They are way ahead of the US in knowing how to 'Unificate'.
Would you have a meltdown if Canada and the US became a unified Country one day?
The EU Countries can decide if they want to secede or not, looks like Britain decided to exit, we'll see how that turns out.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Are you saying that a "colony" equates to Countries that already had their own Government, laws, money, etc, and had been independent for 100s of years; because your inference that they were "little Kingdoms" is amusing?
It's looking like GB may not be the last "EU Country" to reclaim their individuality and you're correct; because we will see.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Here's what a true Socialist thought of the EU, sadly Tony Benn is no longer with us or he'd certainly have been speaking out vociferously for Brexit.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...-referendum-tony-benn-labour-gordon-brown-spt
https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...-referendum-tony-benn-labour-gordon-brown-spt
Are you saying that a "colony" equates to Countries that already had their own Government, laws, money, etc, and had been independent for 100s of years; because your inference that they were "little Kingdoms" is amusing?
It's looking like GB may not be the last "EU Country" to reclaim their individuality and you're correct; because we will see.
"When the United States announced its independence from Great Britain in 1776, Central Europe was a fragmented area of roughly 300 sovereign, independent states (kingdoms, duchies, principalities, free cities, etc.). The German states were bound together in a loose political entity known as the Holy Roman Empire, which dated to the era of Charlemagne in the 800s. By the late eighteenth century, the Holy Roman Empire was, as Voltaire remarked, “Neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.”
https://history.state.gov/countries/issues/german-unification
In my view, Europe as a whole is better than Europe as a group of fragmented and disorganized entities.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Keep in mind that the closest attempts at European unification prior to the EU were Napoleon and Hitler.
Tranquillus in Exile
New member
... Great Britain was a unified nation with a history, laws and constitutional development going back many centuries. The rebellious Americans insisted that they were fighting for their traditional rights as Englishmen.
Nationalism"Globalism" Bd #2
Reductio ad absurdum:
Why be an employee, earning $money for someone else, when you can employ yourself, and earn your own money for yourself?
Follow your argument to its extreme conclusion, and we each end up cudgel-wielding barbarians, clawing out subsistence survival from the wilderness.
There's another name for industry, for economics, for banking, for profit-making organizations, for the U.S. military, and even (believe it or not) congress. That alternate name is "team work".
And for anyone that wishes to assert that we're better off as individuals than we are as a team, I recommend that you immediately implement a NASA grade space program and fly yourself to the moon.
We did it together. It's already done!
If you think we're better off on our own, then you do that. Then we can talk.
Thanks.
My point to USF is that the EU is better as a 'united Europe' rather than a bunch of fragmented small countries.
Authoritarian countries like China, Russia, and the Middle East region are GAINING Power, while historic 'Western Civilization' countries (those that embrace Democracy and Freedom and Liberty) are in a holding pattern.
PS
Did they demand tax cuts for the $rich, as Bush & Trump have provided?
The colonists & Founder's plea was merely: "No taxation without representation".
KG3 was good enough to refuse. And that is why we are sovereign citizens, instead of royal subjects.
The principle they defended was equity.
Did they demand tax cuts for the $rich, as Bush & Trump have provided?
The colonists & Founder's plea was merely: "No taxation without representation".
KG3 was good enough to refuse. And that is why we are sovereign citizens, instead of royal subjects.
That is not merely the founding principle of the E.U., but an economic reality.
When the Brexit vote initially emerged I thought it was an ill-informed blunder.
History seems to have proved my assessment correct. The closer the U.K. looks at the details, the less undesirable E.U. membership looks. It seems her majesty's royal subjects want the benefits of E.U. membership, without the perceived drawbacks.
Children want dessert without eating their broccoli first. The plebiscite lunge toward Brexit increasingly seems to be childishness on that scale.
Interesting, but complicated.
Your implication is it's because of authoritarianism. But that may have little if anything to do with it.
Russia is a global aggressor because its leader, Vlad Putin is a dyed in the wool Cold Warrior.
China's emergence as a global dominator is in part because of short-sighted economics in the West. We can make iPhones in Silicon Valley too. But China's willing to do it for a little $cheaper. So we save a little $jingle in the short run, and risk ceding global ultra-power status in the long run. In China it's known as "the 100 year plan". It's perfectly on schedule.
* You've omitted India, apparently because it doesn't fit your narrative. India (like China) is careening toward global dominance. BUT !! As India's even less regulated than the U.S., it doesn't fit your authoritarianism meme.
The whole enterprise has been ludicrous from beginning to end. Cameron set up the Referendum to shut up the tory weirdoes, and the mugs voted for it out of a mixture of hatred of the rich and powerful, spite and believing lies. Nobody who knew anything about the matter ever believed in it, though a few ambitious villains with lots of money abroad pretended to so as to get mug support. Mrs May has got the best deal possible, and obviously it is worse than the status quo. Why on earth shout the other twenty-seven countries subsidies this nonsense? We can only hope for another referendum and a sane verdict. The whole affair is utterly unBritish. Our way has always been to elect people with time to study things, then vote them out if we don't like what they decide. These plebiscite nonsenses were always the property of European tyrants.
My position is that we are all in a 'Globalist Village' now.
Someone is going to be the 'Mayor', the Leader, the One that sets the 'Rules' for the Future.
We (the West) can continue to Lead with our concept of Freedom, Liberty, Justice, and Democracy ... or we can watch as one or more Authoritarian Governments steps into the Role as Global Leader.
The killing of Khashoggi should be a wake up call, a signal. This is EXACTLY the difference between the 'West' and the Authoritarian Governments. The 'Premeditated Killing ... of a Citizen ... by the State'.
I'm not sure people have fully grasped the significance of this.
Someone is going to be the 'Mayor', the Leader, the One that sets the 'Rules' for the Future.
We (the West) can continue to Lead with our concept of Freedom, Liberty, Justice, and Democracy ... or we can watch as one or more Authoritarian Governments steps into the Role as Global Leader.
The killing of Khashoggi should be a wake up call, a signal. This is EXACTLY the difference between the 'West' and the Authoritarian Governments. The 'Premeditated Killing ... of a Citizen ... by the State'.
I'm not sure people have fully grasped the significance of this.
a) I wouldn't know. But I defer to your insight, as I guess wildly that you're not in the U.S.
b) If you are right, kudos to the European tyrants. For European tyrants are a small minority. And thus their interests are the interests of the small minority. What this accomplishes is to grant the priorities of this exclusive minority the weight of democratic support.
Engineering that politically, electorally is nothing short of sorcery, no matter how evil or detrimental their motive or outcome.
The competition continues.
The difference is,
- a steed mounted knight might slay 5 or 10 opposing knights a year, and be considered a legendary hero.
- a predator drone remote pilot can slay 10 or 20 "terrorists" before breakfast, and lapse into eternity anonymously. Sarah WHO?!
Extrapolate the curves of the ratio of on-board jet fighter U.S. military pilots, and U.S. drone pilots, and we see those lines cross.
What some don't know is, those lines crossed years ago. The U.S. military has graduated more remote pilots than U.S. military pilot-aboard fighter pilots for years.
It's a new millennium.
Even the fringe rebels / criminals understand synergy.
"There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer's orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else's employee."
Excerpt from Unabomb Manifesto: author convict Theodore Kaczynski; sentenced to Lifetime imprisonment without possibility of parole
Either way, people will suffer the consequence.
Tranquillus in Exile
New member
The EU Commission, headed by President Juncker, is for most purposes the government of the European Union. If you don't like what they are doing, how would you vote them out?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Which has nothing to do with the EU being formed in 1993 (25 years ago) and that those countries had been independent for 100s of years.
You're answers are showing your desperation.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
And who is making that decision that they are "better"; because it seems the citizens of some of those countries don't appear to be in agreement with you?
Which has nothing to do with the EU being formed in 1993 (25 years ago) and that those countries had been independent for 100s of years.
You're answers are showing your desperation.
Look, Cisco. There's a long standing history here at JPP, that you may or may not be familiar with, I think you are but possibly you aren't, so let me try and clarify it for you.
Just because you don't know anything about a particular topic, does not mean you can't post your massive intellectual wisdom here. So, with that in mind, back the fuck off mother fucker, I'm stating an opinion here.
Either work through the UK government or the European Parliament, obviously. Why do you ask?