• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

thfcsteff said:
We now live entirely in a world where any idiot can make an outrageous statement, and the burden of proof lies on the victim/recipients of that statement to disprove it. Add to this the increased pace of 'information', the calibration of people to keep 'moving' briskly and only take notice of 'highlights' (this was the utter disgrace of twitter and its 144 character model) and fuse it with the fear and desperation mentioned above, and I find myself wondering how we can escape this self-created trap.

To that, I think it is vital that wherever possible, we support local organic initiatives. Support your local coffee shop or boozer. Get a couple of mates together once a week or so and spend some time talking about whatever, but face-to-face over a coffee or a pint. Make that time. Read books, real ones. Listen to an entire album sometimes, not just a snippet. Wherever possible, engage in a different cultural element than your own, whether that be food, art, whatever. Be active, walk, run, cycle, play footy, whatever, just stretch your body and mind. If you feel the urge to write something, or draw, or create a piece of music, do it, and do it proudly without fearing judgement or ridicule, just do it. Delete your X account if you haven't already. And most of all, as much as life tries to throw fear bombs into your everyday life, reject them. Choose finding one positive thing a day (if not more), but start with one. I mean, I think it's a practical way through?
p.s. I think it is also safe to again suggest watching Tottenham Hotspur!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I agree and I also agree with Spurs being exempt from the personal revoult.
 
thfcsteff said:
I did not offer the comment as a statement either way, I offered it as a TRUTH.

I did not offer the comment as a statement either way, I offered it as a fudging TRUTH.
I understand wholeheartedly that you'd be against rejoining. I won't speculate as to where you were when Cameron brick the bed and either cucked for Putin or committed one of the most selfish, stupid, and assumptive actions I have seen from a 'global leader'. And, frankly, a truth that has been partially delivered by Brexit, which was the absolute catalyst for all Putin has been looking to do to Europe.


...we're so far beyond the 'question' you've posed...so so far beyond it...
Click to expand...

You don’t always have to respond with your personal truth.

I didn’t think we should have left the EU. I don’t think we should rejoin. Both perfectly reasonable opinions.
 
robp135 said:
You don’t always have to respond with your personal truth.

I didn’t think we should have left the EU. I don’t think we should rejoin. Both perfectly reasonable opinions.
Click to expand...

I think you mean 'one doesn't'...no need to speak for me. I am very, very careful about what I write, so when I respond with a personal truth, it is absolutely intended...

A word about the post you responded to versus the one I ended up editing.
You often post in what I consider to be a provocative and obtuse fashion, seeing to edge a line without taking one. It could be seen as 'fishing'.
I often have to read three of your posts in a row to understand what you're really saying; again, this is your style, and I accept that; however, you do often project as a willing provocateur.
You once complained that I go in and 'edit' my posts. In your case, I do so because (as I said above) it takes two or three of your posts for me to ascertain exactly what you're trying to say/intending to say.

It's why sometimes (this case being an example) the post you responded to was not the post I ended up leaving as record.

I am still not sure whether you are aware of your sometime-projection, or whether it is simply your style. Either way, I felt it worth the time to write a reason as to why such reactions sometimes occur...
 
Last edited:
thfcsteff said:
I think you mean 'one doesn't'...no need to speak for me. I am very, very careful about what I write, so when I respond with a personal truth, it is absolutely intended.
Click to expand...

My grammar is very poor from a combination of laziness in these settings and my brain not functioning that way. If your intent was to belittle me you achieved your goal. If it was something else, I’d suggest you refrain from the corrections unless you genuinely do not understand what I’ve said.
 
robp135 said:
My grammar is very poor from a combination of laziness in these settings and my brain not functioning that way.
Click to expand...

Got it. I somewhat thought the latter might be true, but as I've said many time here, I try (trying to being the operative word!) not to make assumptions on things I don't know (which is frankly a lot!)...


robp135 said:
If your intent was to belittle me you achieved your goal.
Click to expand...

That was absolutely not my intent whatsoever. I took offence to being (as I saw it) patronized. I take care over what I write, in the same way I take care of what I say to people.

robp135 said:
If it was something else, I’d suggest you refrain from the corrections unless you genuinely do not understand what I’ve said.
Click to expand...

My counter to this is that I cannot be expected to account for your self-professed laziness. Words are part of my livlihood so I take them seriously. I am not a grammar clown shoe in any way; I do think it is important to take care of words used when addressing them specifically to someone.
 
thfcsteff said:
Is that true? I genuinely do not know what sort of leverage we would/wouldn't have, thus my question is in earnest.
Click to expand...

Technically speaking they could re-join if parliament approved. But in reality that would never get the votes needed without it being clear the public is on side which would require another referendum or an election where rejoining is the principal manifesto item.
 
Last edited:
thfcsteff said:
Got it. I somewhat thought the latter might be true, but as I've said many time here, I try (trying to being the operative word!) not to make assumptions on things I don't know (which is frankly a lot!)...




That was absolutely not my intent whatsoever. I took offence to being (as I saw it) patronized. I take care over what I write, in the same way I take care of what I say to people.



My counter to this is that I cannot be expected to account for your self-professed laziness. Words are part of my livlihood so I take them seriously. I am not a grammar clown shoe in any way; I do think it is important to take care of words used when addressing them specifically to someone.
Click to expand...

If you don’t understand what I have said, just ask for clarification rather than correct. That would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
robp135 said:
If you don’t understand what I have said, just ask for clarification rather than correct. That would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Rob.

FWIW I often ask you for clarification.

One other thing. I actually think you're a very neat and tidy writer who uses language very acutely and precisely. Take it as a compliment that I sometimes find what you say offensive, yet done so with craft ;)...don't undervalue your literary skills (again I offer this with genuine compliments)...
 
Mikey10 said:
Because it would allow us unfettered access to the largest single market in the world, and because the vast majority of economists conclude that being outside it costs us hundreds of millions each year? Also, because it would provide additional national security at a time when the world faces unprecedented levels of threat, and while our once staunchest ally seems to be completely unreliable?

Don’t know. Just speculating.
Click to expand...

What additional national security would it really provide? Potentially access to some of their crime databases but beyond that what would it realistically deliver that couldn't happen outside of the EU? Don't forget British intelligence is pretty well respected and out network including diplomacy is probably the strongest in Europe plus we have nukes which only France has (I know there's been talk about pooling them with other European countries).
 
The 'national security' aspect is a bit of a stretch, I humbly think. We share common values and common goals. We have worked very closely on the defence of Europe and the oft-targeted border nations of 'Putin'. Where it gets woolly is, the previously mentioned 'Single European Army' or 'defence mechanism', which sounded at the time more like a means to control/share defence contracts more widely throughout the EU. Should the EU and it's wider European neighbours think about 'joint' or a coalition response to threats? Of course they should. This would happen bilaterally or multilaterally. Being able to respond quickly, having a joint 'quick action' force makes perfect common sense, considering the current state of affairs with Russia aggressing and the US (Also Russia) posturing towards shrinking back from previous commitments to North Atlantic security. What we have to realise is that the EU is not some perfect organisation that is totally secure and infallible to outside interference. Look at the problems Orban created from within. When it comes to intelligence, sharing is important, sharing everything with everyone is hugely counterproductive. The EU comes with many benefits, it's weaknesses are not something you want when you have to respond quickly to grave situations and matters of national security. Even within the EU they couldn't properly agree on sanctions against Russia with various countries acting in their own national interests.
 
Clarky said:
The 'national security' aspect is a bit of a stretch, I humbly think. We share common values and common goals. We have worked very closely on the defence of Europe and the oft-targeted border nations of 'Putin'. Where it gets woolly is, the previously mentioned 'Single European Army' or 'defence mechanism', which sounded at the time more like a means to control/share defence contracts more widely throughout the EU. Should the EU and it's wider European neighbours think about 'joint' or a coalition response to threats? Of course they should. This would happen bilaterally or multilaterally. Being able to respond quickly, having a joint 'quick action' force makes perfect common sense, considering the current state of affairs with Russia aggressing and the US (Also Russia) posturing towards shrinking back from previous commitments to North Atlantic security. What we have to realise is that the EU is not some perfect organisation that is totally secure and infallible to outside interference. Look at the problems Orban created from within. When it comes to intelligence, sharing is important, sharing everything with everyone is hugely counterproductive. The EU comes with many benefits, it's weaknesses are not something you want when you have to respond quickly to grave situations and matters of national security. Even within the EU they couldn't properly agree on sanctions against Russia with various countries acting in their own national interests.
Click to expand...

There are also only 4 EU countries a not in NATO.
 
Clarky said:
The 'national security' aspect is a bit of a stretch, I humbly think. We share common values and common goals. We have worked very closely on the defence of Europe and the oft-targeted border nations of 'Putin'. Where it gets woolly is, the previously mentioned 'Single European Army' or 'defence mechanism', which sounded at the time more like a means to control/share defence contracts more widely throughout the EU. Should the EU and it's wider European neighbours think about 'joint' or a coalition response to threats? Of course they should. This would happen bilaterally or multilaterally. Being able to respond quickly, having a joint 'quick action' force makes perfect common sense, considering the current state of affairs with Russia aggressing and the US (Also Russia) posturing towards shrinking back from previous commitments to North Atlantic security. What we have to realise is that the EU is not some perfect organisation that is totally secure and infallible to outside interference. Look at the problems Orban created from within. When it comes to intelligence, sharing is important, sharing everything with everyone is hugely counterproductive. The EU comes with many benefits, it's weaknesses are not something you want when you have to respond quickly to grave situations and matters of national security. Even within the EU they couldn't properly agree on sanctions against Russia with various countries acting in their own national interests.
Click to expand...

Indeed, thought-provoking stuff. An interesting sub-debate is which EU we're thinking about.
I think there's an 'ideals-based EU' which many (including myself) default to, and then there's the current EU which is a very different thing. Can the 'ideals-based' pre-Orban pre-Putin era EU ever return (with some modifications with regards to how it could benefit us) or has that genie left the bottle? I think the 'work' Putin has done in destabilizing the continent has been somewhat extraordinary, and started so long ago that we can barely remember what it was all like before he started sewing the seeds of malfeasance, chaos, and destabilization (loong before Donbas BTW)...
 
thfcsteff said:
Indeed, thought-provoking stuff. An interesting sub-debate is which EU we're thinking about.
I think there's an 'ideals-based EU' which many (including myself) default to, and then there's the current EU which is a very different thing. Can the 'ideals-based' pre-Orban pre-Putin era EU ever return (with some modifications with regards to how it could benefit us) or has that genie left the bottle? I think the 'work' Putin has done in destabilizing the continent has been somewhat extraordinary, and started so long ago that we can barely remember what it was all like before he started sewing the seeds of malfeasance, chaos, and destabilization (loong before Donbas BTW)...
Click to expand...

If anything Putin drew the eu together.

The eu is flawed based on ideology rather than reality.
You have different countries. With different work weeks, pension ages, taxes, wages etc...
Yet freedom of movement. And an open border policy to the rest of the world.
Europe has heen the slowest growing economic continent for the last 30 years. It's only because africas birthrate is higher than it's gdp (and coruption) growth that it has got poorer.
 
According to data from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, average annual real GDP growth rates across major regions break down as follows:
    • Asia & Pacific: ~4.5% to 6.5% annually on average (led by heavyweights like China and India, which alone have driven nearly two-thirds of global growth since the 1990s). South Asia and East/Southeast Asia regularly outpaced the rest of the world. [1, 2, 3, 4]
    • Africa: ~4.0% to 4.6% annual growth on average (with a notable surge between 2002 and 2011 exceeding 4% per year, and steady post-pandemic performance driven by infrastructure and energy). [1, 2]
    • North America: ~2.1% to 2.2% annual growth on average, anchored by steady US expansion and resilient consumer spending. [1, 2]
    • South America / Latin America: ~2.0% to 2.3% annual growth on average, characterized by high volatility, commodity-price cycles, and selective outperformance in nations like Guyana. [1, 2]
    • Europe: ~1.3% to 1.7% annual growth on average (Eastern and Western Europe combined), reflecting a mature industrial base, demographic headwinds, and recent shocks like the energy crisis. [1, 2]
    • Oceania (Australia & New Zealand): ~1.9% to 2.1% annual growth on average. [1, 2]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back