Brexit: the UK goes full retard

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by The Internet, Jun 24, 2016.

  1. White Tara Global Moderator

    He now seems to be offering his particular brand of advice and assistance to any and all nations of Europe wishing to exit the EU themselves. One might call him a scavenger.
  2. The Internet Member

    March 31 2014:
    I wonder if the admiration is mutual.
  3. The Internet Member

    I was denigrating the Brexit plan itself, which seemed to be feel-good PR without clear answers to questions like, how much is it going to cost us to sell our stuff within the EU?
  4. Mann Ace Member

    I don't follow European politics, but its seems the Progressives have been dominate in both Europe and the US. The EU is a progressive union, not a conservative one, so Progressives have had the upper hand for at least the past 23 years. Maybe that's totally wrong, but that's my perception of it. And of course, in the US, we've had the most progressive (ie illiberal) president ever.

    Also, is there value in the non cosmopolitans? I live in a rural area, none of my neighbors could possibly be described as cosmopolitan, yet they are all fine folk. We also live on the border, and those who came from Mexico are among the most adamant that immigrants do it legally.They hate illegal immigration, which surprised me when I first moved here. The legal Mexican immigrants are among the most conservative regarding immigration.

    So you think that Russia is going to use the Ukraine to dominate oil markets. Please explain, and show your work this time.
  5. The Internet Member

    Ukraine is an example of Russia's strong arm tactics like cutting off fuel in winter, buying politicians, spreading lies and confusion, and covert ops to fuck stuff up so his doods can get it cheap.
  6. Mann Ace Member

    I still haven't heard how you think Russia is going to dominate energy markets. You've detailed a possible way to make money through being in a position of power, but not a way to 'dominate energy markets.'

    Please explain how Russia will 'dominate energy markets.' Again, be specific, and show your work. I want to understand your reasoning.
  7. The Internet Member

    Ukraine wanted to start getting fuel from non-Russian sources. But Putin was like, no.
  8. Mann Ace Member

    Maybe I misunderstood you. When you said Putin wants to dominate energy markets, I thought you meant world markets. Instead, you seem to be saying Russia is bullying the Ukraine. I don't really keep up with that fight, but it seems Russia is not winning it. I read that the Ukraine is getting gas from Europe, and Russia is not doing well because of the low oil prices.

    So, once again, do you have some thought as to how Putin is supposed to "dominate energy markets" or are you talking about Russia being a bully?

    Moving on, here's an interesting article that references the Douthat article linked above.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. The Internet Member

    Ukraine is just an example, like a guy who gets beat up by the mob to show others who is the boss.
    Mann Ace said:
    This reminds me of fishypants' article which had a lot of psychological stuff in it. All fine and good but that kind of analysis should be job #2. Job # 1 has to come first. Job #1 is facts.

    What are the actual facts concerning the UK in or out of the EU? Do people in the UK understand these facts or have they been given bad info? How do we make sure the public have access to good info when they are asked to vote on some matter?
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Random guy Member

    The facts of the mater is no-one knows how all this will turn out, not even the main players. There's elections coming up in both Germany and France, and Junker seems to have an uncertain seat for the first time, in a year's time things could look very different. No-one have seceded from the EU before. I don't think Putin has any more clue than the rest of them.

    I don't think anyone missed Cameron's assertion that leaving the EU would be a "jump in the dark". It is a jump into uncharted territory, and I think anyone with half a bran can see that. The amazing thing it a majority of Brits wanted to make that jump anyhow, which probably tells you that status quo can't have been very good.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Sekee Member

    BBC Brexit Special: Why We Voted Leave

  12. JohnnyRUClear Member

    lol plan
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Mann Ace Member

    So the answer to my question "How will Putin/Russia dominate energy markets" is he/they won't and you were just talking to hear yourself talk. Got it. You've got nothing. What a joker you are , wasting our time with senseless speculation. Well, fool me once...

    As for facts, those are slippery beasts, hard to pin down, and hotly contested in any case. Let's look to see how UK does over the coming years. I'm betting that the EU will be gone in another 20 years.

    TI, why do you think the people voted to Leave? Do you think there might be psychological factors? Do you think those factors might be important in understanding why people voted to Leave? In fact, do you not think that those psychological factors might be the crux of the matter?

  14. guy-with-a-plan.gif
    • Like Like x 2
  15. The Internet Member

    Facts first, psychology second. In this case the facts asserted were printed on the side of a bus and were spoken in a movie and several adverts. Politicians spoke them in speaches. A lot of those alleged facts were wrong.

    As for Russian energy companies, they do dominate the market in Ukraine and much of Eastern Europe.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Mann Ace Member

    Facts first? Who's facts? Your unspoken assumption is that only one side in this issue lied about their positions. That is of course a laughable position to take. The lies are part and parcel of democracy. It's a messy process.
    Which is not "dominating energy markets." What you are describing is Russia as bully, something they have centuries of practice at.
    Ya got nothing, kid. Give it up.
  17. Random guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  18. JohnnyRUClear Member

    While the article does a good job of presenting various "leaders" discussing very real concerns emerging into their view due to Brexit, all of the people quoted seem to beg a crucial question: while all agree that the institution of the state has a problem, they don't discuss whether or not the institution of the state is the source of the solution to the problem (and I posit that it isn't).

    I note also that there is much hand-wringing expressed over various "far-right" individuals (and their respective constitutencies/groups), but none of those people are quoted. They are, evidently, merely specimens to be studied and commented upon by others. That, to me, seems symptomatic of the underlying problem here. As a species, while we are vigorously speaking about one another, we could be doing better at speaking with one another. As I noted earlier, that appears to cut both ways re: Brexit: the "leaders" weren't listening to the "losers", which led the "losers" to plug their ears toward the "leaders" and vote to leave the EU.
  19. ITT: Capture Competition

    • Like Like x 1
  20. 89.1 % debt to GDP with a downrated credit rating.
  21. Heey UK suck on this:

  22. Let's be friends:

  23. The Wrong Guy Member

    The Digital Economy Act has become even more bizarre.

    UK Tories want 10-year prison sentences for watching TV the wrong way

    By Cory Doctorow, Boing Boing


    Back in 2010, on the last day of the last Labour government, a whipped Parliament voted in the terrible Digital Economy Act, after a short, embarrassingly illiterate debate whose howlers demonstrated just how little the MPs understood about the law they were voting in (the whole process was later revealed to be a fix from day one).

    The Libdems pledged to repeal the Act, but threw that promise away with all their other progressive promises when they formed a coalition with the Tories in 2010. Instead, the taxpayers were stuck with a £500M bill to subsidise the business strategies of the entertainment industry, while blackmailers operated with impunity, raking in cash by threatening their victims with prosecution under the law's provisions.

    In the years since, the case for the law has been thoroughly debunked, both by independent academic researchers, more independent scholars, and the UK government's own independent experts.

    Now it's time to update the Digital Economy Act, and so naturally, the Conservative Party has drafted a law that takes the worst, least-supportable, most outlandish part of the legislation and quintuples-down on it. While the original DEA carries an absurd maximum two-year prison sentence for infringement (that is, for listening to a song on one website instead of another, or streaming a show that expired off the iPlayer a few days earlier), the new revision provides for ten-year prison sentences for infringement.

    Continued here:
  24. Random guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  25. Random guy Member

    Will UK fragment post Brexit?

    Irish Times: Irish nationalist hysteria over Brexit seems more wind than candle

  26. The Internet Member

    Without facts there is no shared reality. And without a shared reality conversation becomes ab hug artist plan berth ug.
  27. Mann Ace Member

    Reality exists independent of the observers. We share reality because we are alive, not because we agree. If we both agree gravity is a social construct, reality is going kill us despite our 'shared reality'

    You really come up with some of the oddest ways of looking at the world. Look up folie à deux for a 'shared reality'
  28. Mann Ace Member

    • Like Like x 1
  29. Psychology one on one.


    "To cause things others can expierience" That was what Hubbard made of it I think In the little booklet "Self-Analysis"

    One of the pilars to be happy he says in there So WTF is the rest for you would think.
  30. Mann Ace Member

    Let me take a different tack. Could you name some of the facts of our shared reality?

    I know English is not your first language, but could you take a deep breath, and try again? Thanks.
  31. Quentinanon Member

    You have been on this forum for quite some time and you have not concluded that shared reality does not necessarily have anything to do with facts?
    e.g. scientology
  32. Quentinanon Member


    So, what's in the pump container? Douche concentrate?
    Are they reading the directions for use?
    • Like Like x 2
  33. "Have a drink, Boris. Go on.", or
    "Y'know, Michael, we're now more toxic than this green gloop", or
    "We're gonna have to kick the methadone habit if we want a seat in Theresa's Cabinet", or
    "I could do that. Gissa job, eh?"
    • Like Like x 2
  34. Mann Ace Member
    In politics, nothing is ever settled...
    • Like Like x 1

  36. The Internet Member

    This reality that we share gives us something firm to stand upon, if we can reassure ourselves that we are both talking about the same thing. This firmness can save us from falling into the trap of, "what is true for you is true."

    Hubbard talked about agreement but he seemed to mean simple agreement --the kind that has no explicit method for distinguishing facts from opinions.

    Reality testing involves corroboration, falsification, logic, and parsimony. The corroboration part means one guy can't lay down facts all by himself.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins