Franglais:
kmills:
Carryfast:
EU means peace in Europe yeah right it’s one of the biggest liesWell it has since 1945…
I think some members reckon that’s about fifteen years of peace then…
[/quote]
25, he’s reached the 1970’s
Franglais:
“All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”Tell a big enough lie, and someone will believe it. “Nah, no-one could possibly make that up”. “No-one would have the brass neck to say that, if it weren`t true”.
Even when it is shown to be a lie, someone will still say “No smoke without fire”, and “They wouldn
t deny it, if it wasnt true”.Once a seed is planted, no matter how weak that seed is, those with manure for brains will find it grows well enough.
Confirmation bias. You believe what you’ve decided to believe, in spite of the evidence.
Anyway, it’s a moot point. Only 3 months to go before £350,000,000 per week gets pumped into the NHS, and we will have ‘taken back control’. Woo Hoo!
Er, the people of several nations or rather past nations would disagree: Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ukraine to name a few. The rights of peoples of individual nation states have been trampled upon regardless.
“Dubcek, Svoboda; Dubcek Svoboda; Dubcek, Svoboda; Dubcek, Svoboda.”
telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/0 … s-brought/
From the above:
“Not for nothing did a bemused Mikhail Gorbachev – and as the man who presided over the dissolution of Russia’s “evil empire” he should surely know – say that the most puzzling development in Europe over the past decade was the determination of the EU’s leaders to reconstruct the Soviet Union, a failed state if there ever was one, on the soil of western Europe.”
dexxy57:
Confirmation bias. You believe what you’ve decided to believe, in spite of the evidence.
You mean like the EU is made up of sovereign nation states and a net contribution and trade deficit is in fact the opposite.
cav551:
Er, the people of several nations or rather past nations would disagree: Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ukraine to name a few. The rights of peoples of individual nation states have been trampled upon regardless.“Dubcek, Svoboda; Dubcek Svoboda; Dubcek, Svoboda; Dubcek, Svoboda.”
telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/0 … s-brought/
From the above:
“Not for nothing did a bemused Mikhail Gorbachev – and as the man who presided over the dissolution of Russia’s “evil empire” he should surely know – say that the most puzzling development in Europe over the past decade was the determination of the EU’s leaders to reconstruct the Soviet Union, a failed state if there ever was one, on the soil of western Europe.”
Ironically Yugoslavia was a war of Federal aggression v secession and the right of self determination just like the ones in the USA in 1861 and Ireland v UK in 1916-20.
Ukraine is a similar situation to that which still exists between Irish Nationalism v Ulster Unionism and which Michael Collins tried and more or less succeeded in diffusing at the cost of his own life among others.IE Russian Unionists v Ukrainian Nationalists.While the definition of a Nationalist means respecting the right of self determination of others hence the Irish border solution and which is the only way to settle the Ukrainian issue peacefully.While it’s clear that in typically corrupt Federalist form the EU is all about inflaming and taking advantage of slavic infighting to add to its own megalomaniac expansionist agenda in Ukraine.Just as it did in Yugoslavia.
cav551:
Er, the people of several nations or rather past nations would disagree: Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ukraine to name a few. The rights of peoples of individual nation states have been trampled upon regardless.“Dubcek, Svoboda; Dubcek Svoboda; Dubcek, Svoboda; Dubcek, Svoboda.”
telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/0 … s-brought/
From the above:
“Not for nothing did a bemused Mikhail Gorbachev – and as the man who presided over the dissolution of Russia’s “evil empire” he should surely know – say that the most puzzling development in Europe over the past decade was the determination of the EU’s leaders to reconstruct the Soviet Union, a failed state if there ever was one, on the soil of western Europe.”
Those former Soviet Satellite countries will know better than us about oppression wont they? So why did Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, , Estonia, , Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, all join if its so bad?
And I don`t think Gorbachev is exactly an independent observer and commentator, now is he?
dexxy57:
Franglais:
kmills:
Carryfast:
EU means peace in Europe yeah right it’s one of the biggest liesWell it has since 1945…
I think some members reckon that’s about fifteen years of peace then…
25, he’s reached the 1970’s
[/quote]
Sorry, youre right. How time flies.....we ll nearly be in the twenty-first century in a couple of decades!
Off another thread but still appropriate to his contributions:
> Carryfast:
> Remind us what the population figure was during the Cretaceous period ?
kmills:
Carryfast:
EU means peace in Europe yeah right it’s one of the biggest lies
Well it has since 1945…
[/quote]
Correlation does not imply causation. I think we would have had peace irrespective of the EU. No one can say one way or the other for sure.
albion:
kmills:
Carryfast:
EU means peace in Europe yeah right it’s one of the biggest liesWell it has since 1945…
Correlation does not imply causation. I think we would have had peace irrespective of the EU. No one can say one way or the other for sure.
The implication was always that the Germans would either kick off again and/or go with DDR and open the country and Europe to a Soviet invasion if they didn’t get everything they wanted in the form of being handed the position of top dog in Europe.Here we are with EU Federalists calling that peace in Europe and Stasi Merkel running the show with the help of little Napoleon Macron.
Franglais:
Those former Soviet Satellite countries will know better than us about oppression wont they? So why did Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, , Estonia, , Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, all join if its so bad?
And I don`t think Gorbachev is exactly an independent observer and commentator, now is he?
You mean like that great supporter of the EUSSR/4th Reich Victor Orban.
While you know why Slovenia for one joined yet another European Federal zb pile after fighting a war of Federal Aggression and Secession.Follow the $$$$£££££.Just like they were happy enough until Russia stopped all the cheap oil supplies and other stuff.On that note have you ever seen the queues at the Yugoslav border fuel stations.All of us Italians,Brits and Germans filling up with cheap Russian fuel ( don’t ask about the octane rating ) and even more for the money if you paid the attendant with contraband Swiss Francs instead of Dinars. 
albion:
kmills:
Carryfast:
EU means peace in Europe yeah right it’s one of the biggest liesWell it has since 1945…
Correlation does not imply causation. I think we would have had peace irrespective of the EU. No one can say one way or the other for sure.
[/quote]
But there is a causal mechanism here. This isnt a case of seeing of seeing a correlation and assuming causation. One of the aims of the project was to tie the former belligerants so tightly economically that they couldnt fight.
You can argue that there may have been no need for that financial inter-dependency, of course. You can argue the mechanism is unnecessary, maybe the lessons would have been learnt anyway? But I dont see you can argue it doesnt exist.
Accuse me of nit-picking semantics*, but I think your last two statements are absolutely correct. The first one, although correct in form, implies there is an absence of a causal aspect, while I maintain, needed or not, it does exist.
*guilty. 
Franglais:
One of the aims of the project was to tie the former belligerants so tightly economically that they couldn`t fight.
Yeah right just like the Roman Empire,USA,Austro Hungarian Empire,Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc,UK and the Yugoslav Federation.Move along never any wars of Federal aggression v Secession to see here.
Which part of the right of self determination always trumps economics and sometimes one part of the Federation stitching up,or even perceived as stitching up,another economically actually rightly adds to secessionist feeling,don’t you understand.
While at best all you’ve actually done is to create a larger stronger centralised State machine.Which is why both the Kaiser and Hitler had access to a much larger catchment area of resources to rule over and exploit.Than they would have had if Germany had remained nothing but a geographic area made up of small independent sovereign states rather than Bismark’s Federal monster.Federation = peace bs.
Franglais:
albion:
kmills:
Carryfast:
EU means peace in Europe yeah right it’s one of the biggest liesWell it has since 1945…
Correlation does not imply causation. I think we would have had peace irrespective of the EU. No one can say one way or the other for sure.
But there is a causal mechanism here. This isnt a case of seeing of seeing a correlation and assuming causation. One of the aims of the project was to tie the former belligerants so tightly economically that they couldnt fight.
You can argue that there may have been no need for that financial inter-dependency, of course. You can argue the mechanism is unnecessary, maybe the lessons would have been learnt anyway? But I dont see you can argue it doesnt exist.
Accuse me of nit-picking semantics*, but I think your last two statements are absolutely correct. The first one, although correct in form, implies there is an absence of a causal aspect, while I maintain, needed or not, it does exist.
*guilty.
[/quote]
I dont think it does imply an absence of causal effect, it just says no one knows what might have happened.
I just dont like facts being paraded when they aren’t facts, nit picker 
albion:
I just dont like facts being paraded when they aren’t facts, nit picker
Amen to that!
albion:
I just dont like facts being paraded when they aren’t facts, nit picker
Not France 1916 or 1940 or Germany 1945.
So called ‘USA’ 1860’s fact.
Similar reasons given a to why Federation was supposedly so good when the constitution was hijacked less than 100 years previously.
civil-war.net/cw_images/files/images/617.jpg
cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/medi … 20_405.jpg
bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17604991
We really should view Federalists as criminally insane.
Carryfast:
albion:
I just dont like facts being paraded when they aren’t facts, nit pickerNot France 1916 or 1940 or Germany 1945.
So called ‘USA’ 1860’s fact.
Similar reasons given a to why Federation was supposedly so good when the constitution was hijacked less than 100 years previously.
civil-war.net/cw_images/files/images/617.jpg
cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/medi … 20_405.jpg
bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17604991
We really should view Federalists as criminally insane.
When the American Union split, there was bloodshed because of conflict between the States.
Since they have been United, there has been no bloodshed because of conflict between the States.
Looks like a good advert for stronger ties to me.
Carryfast:
Which part of the right of self determination always trumps economics and sometimes one part of the Federation stitching up,or even perceived as stitching up,another economically actually rightly adds to secessionist feeling,don’t you understand.
All of that.
Franglais:
When the American Union split, there was bloodshed because of conflict between the States.
Since they have been United, there has been no bloodshed because of conflict between the States.
Looks like a good advert for stronger ties to me. .
It wasn’t a conflict ‘between the states’ at all.It was a conflict between the US Federal government/Union v Secessionist States which rightly wanted to assert their right to self determination.In large part because the one size fits all economic model didn’t suit the agricultural based Southern States economies.Which was actually an issue raised at the time when the Federalists hijacked the US constitution long before and when they were actually all slave holding states.
On that note you’ve already admitted that the ‘Union’ already existed at the time and it was actually a war of ( Federal aggression ) v Secession.There has been no further bloodshed because in this case the Secessionist side lost and the Federal government and army won.IE it’s a so called ‘Union’ based on force and the threat of further violence and invasion and occupation if any state dares to try to secede in future.It’s also the reason why the US wants a Europe made in its own image and won’t tolerate a Confederate States of Europe based on independent Sovereign States.
Just like the Roman Empire to the Yugoslav Federation and just as the EU will be in less than 100 years time.Assuming the Germans don’t go full ■■■■■■ in trying operation Barbarossa 2 using their new found resources provided by having the even bigger EU monster at their disposal,first.No doubt with Federalist fanatics like you shouting we come in peace as they roll across the Russian border.
A change is as good as a rest, your next subject is =
What is it about the UK that makes them want to come here ■■? Harvey
HRS:
A change is as good as a rest, your next subject is =What is it about the UK that makes them want to come here ■■? Harvey
Them?