@BillRM,
This is a thread about the UK, not your pornographic obsession with firearms.
Nor is it about your desire to invade Europe.
Over here we think killing children is wrong. I know such a concept is hard for you to grasp, but it's how we feel.
@izzythepush,
Attacks on MPs has just been brought up in parliament. Brexit has really brought the nasty side of people to the surface.
May has been accused of fanning the flames after blaming MPs for her inability to get her Brexit deal through. It's her fault, she's a terrible prime minister and a lousy leader.
Quote:Labour MP Stephen Doughty intervenes to raise a concern about the prime minister's statement last week in which she blamed MPs for the delay to Brexit.
He says at this is not the time for politicians to be "raising the heat".
David Lidington replies: "Looking up at the memorial shield to Jo Cox, I am very sharply reminded of the fact that many members of the House have been subject to the most appalling threats.
"Every one of us has a responsibility to ensure no encouragement is given to those wicked people."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-47696409
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
This is a thread about the UK, not your pornographic obsession with firearms.
Nor is it about your desire to invade Europe.
Over here we think killing children is wrong. I know such a concept is hard for you to grasp, but it's how we feel.
LOL somehow I question that the millions of young US men who was ship over to Europe during two world wars to save your English rear ends both times was liking the idea of invading Europe even those that what they did indeed do.
Knowing history is not a moral failing no matter if Trump or you for that matter might disagree and it even not a sin when that history relate in part to firearms.
Killing children where did I ever state that I was for killing children? Hell if I was given the magical power to do away with the 2 amendment I would do so but that does not change the fact that the chance of it being repeal is near zero.
One more comment the second and the third amendment to the constitution directly relate to your government actions during and just before the revolution war an they are both are in full effect to this very second so why do you have a problem addressing how those amendments came into being?
@BillRM,
It's not about WW2 either. Stop trying to wrap yourself in the sodding flag and stick to the topic.
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
It's not about WW2 either. Stop trying to wrap yourself in the sodding flag and stick to the topic.
Amazing as I was always under the impression that the lack of knowledge and interest in history was a failure of US culture and not European culture but if you are a fair example of European culture I been wrong for all these decades.
No the world did not come into existence only a few microseconds ago an to have any kind of understanding of the current day you do need to study the past that the current day grow out of as well
Footnote the US Founding fathers was big into studying the Rome Republic taking notes of their strength and weakness and not feeling that you can not learn from the past as you seems to think.
Quote:
https://bigthink.com/the-proverbial-skeptic/those-who-do-not-learn-history-doomed-to-repeat-it-really
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.'
The quote is most likely due to writer and philosopher George Santayana, and in its original form it read, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Santayana was known for aphorisms, and for being a professor in philosophy at Harvard which he abandoned. Prior to that, Santayana attended Boston Latin School and Harvard College, where he studied under the philosophers William James and Josiah Royce.
According to Santayana's philosophy, history repeats. The phrasing itself certainly is catchy. It's a big one, not only because it is so common, but also because if it is true and if history, driven by human nature, is ugly (hint: it is), then this saying ought to guide our public and private policy.
George Santayana (Sketch artist: Samuel Johnson Woolf)
The sentiment that history repeats aspires to common sense and is hard to disagree with. In the history of the United States and Europe, wars have ended with confiscatory terms of government surrender inevitably breeding more wars. Revolutions, like those in France and Russia, that gave an individual absolute power—Napoleon and Stalin, respectively—inevitably end up as failed empires brutal dictatorships. Even individuals are subject to this advice. Couples who do not learn from their fights break up. People who don’t learn from their mistakes don’t mature.
In the 21st century, specific events in Syria have proven a repeated lessons about civil wars, like the Vietnam war, that when great powers intervene to fight proxy battles, conflict becomes protracted. Incidentally, when Abraham Lincoln governed during the American Civil War, he recognized it was essential to keep out foreign powers like Britain and France.
@BillRM,
If you want to talk about America's contribution to WW2 start another thread. This is about the far right in Britain, and to a lesser extent Europe.
Your knowledge of History is one sided and patchy anyway, but this is not the place to address it.
@izzythepush,
Sad that you are so emotionally tied into being anti american that we can not talk rationally even those I tend to agree with you more then not on a whole wide range of subjects.
Footnote been meaning to ask you if anyone had consider doing a short nationwide general strike to protect going through with Brexit?
@BillRM,
I'm not anti American. You're off topic. Stick to the topic.
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Footnote been meaning to ask you if anyone had consider doing a short nationwide general strike to protect going through with Brexit?
No.
Most of the Brexiteers are retired. Trade Unions wouldn't countenance something like that anyway.
The last general strike was in the 1920s, and it didn't end well.
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
I'm not anti American. You're off topic. Stick to the topic.
Sorry but to me factors that seems to be causing one of the major posters on this system to be non rational on the subject of this thread seems sadly on target.
This thread is not about Brexit, but I'll try to summarise and then we can hopefully move on.
Cameron put party over country when he called the referendum, he wanted to stop his supporters going to UKIP. (Who have imploded and are now the Nazi Party. Farage + supporters left a while ago.)
People were promised the World, billions of extra funding for the NHS, great new trade opportunities, all sorts of nonsense, most of which was instantly dismissed by the Brexiteers the day after the referendum.
May screwed up royally first calling a general election losing her majority, giving a billion quid to the DUP for their support. They're not supporting her deal btw, but they're keeping the billion quid.
She then went into negotiations as if she had a huge majority, ignored opposition MPs and pressed ahead regardless, haemorrhaging ministers along the way. Only when her deal lost the vote did she seek support outside her own coalition and by then it was too late.
There are 4 main camps.
1 Those who support May's deal.
2 Those who think it's too close to Brussels and would prefer no deal, (hard Brexiteers.)
3 Those who think the deal is bad for business and would like to stay closer to Europe, (soft Brexit.)
4 Those opposed to brexit who want another referendum.
The referendum result was roughly 52% -48%. Things have changed. Some leave voters are ideological and won't change their minds but not all.
Some leave voters voted against Cameron as a joke, not realising the implications but a lot more voted for what they were promised which was a lot better than the pile of crap it turns out to be. A friend of mine voted leave, but he has just signed the petition to stop Article 50. (currently 5,634,603 signatures.)
Then there's demographics, by and large old people are leave, young people remain. Since 2016 more leave voters than remain voters have died being replaced with more remain than leave voters.
Then there's Russian interference and criminal behaviour from some leave groups.
Overall a strong change for a second referendum, this time people will know what they're voting for.