StarGateWars Forums

it took a long time because the people understood what the EU was all about which is why the EU was brought into being through the deception known as "Trade Agreements"...

the EU just like the UN is a the joke of a lifetime of the elites over the masses.

I'm not discussing my personal belief about the EU, i'm tired of being told i'm a conspiracist with my opinions steeped in leftism and pseudo-politics. Instead i've chosen a different approach. Like i said you can keep your European Union and you can keep it in a laissez-faire system. The EU should be reformed to it's original mandate. It should have nothing to do with anything which does not concern trade.

In answer to your question about the central banks Avenger, again, i'm tired of having my unfathomable intellect nit-picked by people who can't come up with a better argument than "guess who's been watching too much Alex Jones" (like that's a bad thing anyways?). So, as a result, i say fine again. You have your Capitalist seafaring rules and you stick to the sea. Once you come onto the land you will be under Jury jurisdiction and the Magna Carta. Any trial by Jury would never allopw foreclosure and i'll try to be as simple as possible with the reason why. When a bank enters into a contract it has no "real" consideration. You, on the other hand, pre-offer a huge collateral consideration. As a result of this no trial by jury would recognise the contract between the parties and foreclosure would be illegal on a very fundamental point of contract law.

All this is happening whether people like or not. We as a people, especially in Britrain and Canada, are slowly bringing about a return to common law on the land as opposed to the maritime admiralty "laws" or "law of the seas" which have been sneaked under our tables.

So, to summerise, again (since i didn't make it clear enough first time) carry on with the capitalist system you love so much and keep your EU however, don't come to me or my fellow man when you need a bank bailing out or a war fought on a false premise. Stick to your mandate and we'll be able to concentrate on ours!

-Goo™

i hope that whole post wasn't just directed at me, i know parts were but not the whole.

unlike some people here, i know full well which system we are living under (and the difference between a Freeman-on-the-Land and a citizen) and its not common law, which is the system we once had in place but as you say, has been buried under admiralty banking law.

I think I've addressed some of the issues concerning the banks in my latest thread in this section. I believe that I've presented it in a manner that allows individuals to see the logical connections for themselves.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:it took a long time because the people understood what the EU was all about which is why the EU was brought into being through the deception known as "Trade Agreements"...

the EU just like the UN is a the joke of a lifetime of the elites over the masses.

Seeing who didn't vote in global view for last EU elections, I'm not seeing EU as a bad thing lol!
Masses and people who don't see beyond their little life were the most to abstain.

GhostyGoo wrote:I'm not discussing my personal belief about the EU, i'm tired of being told i'm a conspiracist with my opinions steeped in leftism and pseudo-politics. Instead i've chosen a different approach. Like i said you can keep your European Union and you can keep it in a laissez-faire system. The EU should be reformed to it's original mandate. It should have nothing to do with anything which does not concern trade.

I do NOT want of such EU, a minimal one. If I'm pro EU, it's not to bring back the old! But to move forward, to complete the evolution! It would be nothing more than another barely-worth-to-mention trade treaty that many people don't care about.
Current EU > laissez-faire free trade EU. Most of pro EU people will say the same.

Here, to help you out, Pops, I'll identify every assumption and leap of logic I can find in your argument at first glance. It might help you.

I do NOT want of such EU, a minimal one.

That is your premise? Ok. Accepted. It's not a particularily strong premise, but you're free to have an opinion and use it as a premise.

If I'm pro EU, it's not to bring back the old!

We have an understanding that you are "pro EU", which, by the above logic, implies that you do not want to "bring back the old".

Assumption #1: The old is undesirable. You, however, never mention what it is, nor why or how it is undesirable.

Assumption #2: The EU is a proper response to the problems that are alleged to exist in Assumption #1. You never addressed how and why that is.

But to move forward, to complete the evolution!

Assumption #3: There is something to complete. Is it an end goal? If so, what is that goal?

It would be nothing more than another barely-worth-to-mention trade treaty that many people don't care about.

Assumption #4: The EU must be worthy of mention. Why?
Assumption #5: The EU must be more than a trade treaty. Why?
Assumption #6: People should care about the EU. Why?
Assumption #7: The EU would not be worthy of mention if its scope were limited to trade and trade treaties. What makes the EU mention-worthy by virtue of its scope being beyond trade and trade treaties?
Assumption #8: Many people don't care about trade treaties. Maybe that's true, but again, many do. Does a majority necessarily need to care about trade treaties?

Current EU > laissez-faire free trade EU.

Ok, is this a premise or a conclusion? How does it follow from the above-mentioned premises and assumptions? Are all of the above-mentioned assumptions necessarily true?

Most of pro EU people will say the same.

Ok this is another premise, but it is a weak premise. Furthermore, it relies on:

Assumption #9: That which most pro EU people say accurately reflects the goals of the EU.

Note that Assumptions aren't necessarily wrong. They're just parts of your argument that need to be dealt with, along with the general lack of structure and, in this case, the lack of a clearly-defined conclusion.

Agapooka

Again I ask pops if the EU is soooo great and wonderful why did it deliberately lie to the UK to get the UK to join??

If it was that great it wouldnt have needed to lie, or have needed the UK to survive

Agapooka wrote:Here, to help you out, Pops, I'll identify every assumption and leap of logic I can find in your argument at first glance. It might help you.

I do NOT want of such EU, a minimal one.

That is your premise? Ok. Accepted. It's not a particularily strong premise, but you're free to have an opinion and use it as a premise.

If I'm pro EU, it's not to bring back the old!

We have an understanding that you are "pro EU", which, by the above logic, implies that you do not want to "bring back the old".

Assumption #1: The old is undesirable. You, however, never mention what it is, nor why or how it is undesirable.

Assumption #2: The EU is a proper response to the problems that are alleged to exist in Assumption #1. You never addressed how and why that is.

The old EU has limited role and only concerns few parts of society. Limited to trading cross countries. Not much more than North America free trade agreement.

But to move forward, to complete the evolution!

Assumption #3: There is something to complete. Is it an end goal? If so, what is that goal?

It's not really clear, it can only be assumed as it's too early to clearly view it. The end of old Europe "the damn europe of nations" to something different. Something like USA? Something different? We cannot know clearly now. But goal is clearly to change.

It would be nothing more than another barely-worth-to-mention trade treaty that many people don't care about.

Assumption #4: The EU must be worthy of mention. Why?
Assumption #5: The EU must be more than a trade treaty. Why?
Assumption #6: People should care about the EU. Why?
Assumption #7: The EU would not be worthy of mention if its scope were limited to trade and trade treaties. What makes the EU mention-worthy by virtue of its scope being beyond trade and trade treaties?
Assumption #8: Many people don't care about trade treaties. Maybe that's true, but again, many do. Does a majority necessarily need to care about trade treaties?
Oh my god. There's way too much to say there! I don't even know where to start to reply to you!
Will perhaps answer this later.

Current EU > laissez-faire free trade EU.

Ok, is this a premise or a conclusion? How does it follow from the above-mentioned premises and assumptions? Are all of the above-mentioned assumptions necessarily true?

That was my opinion

Most of pro EU people will say the same.

Ok this is another premise, but it is a weak premise. Furthermore, it relies on:

Assumption #9: That which most pro EU people say accurately reflects the goals of the EU.
Goal of the EU isn't really clear yet as I said. Not all pro EU have same opinion, of course. But most pro EU people agree that making it more than a trade treaty was needed.

Note that Assumptions aren't necessarily wrong. They're just parts of your argument that need to be dealt with, along with the general lack of structure and, in this case, the lack of a clearly-defined conclusion.

Agapooka

Kit-Fox wrote:Again I ask pops if the EU is soooo great and wonderful why did it deliberately lie to the UK to get the UK to join??

If it was that great it wouldnt have needed to lie, or have needed the UK to survive

It's a matter of perspective.
You seem to be obsessed with it..

Jim, your not offering any kind of answer as to why the EU is needed or what is so good about it, what good you as pro-EU person see in it, how it helps ANY of the member nations, why many of the member nations leaders had to lie to get the people of their respective nations to join the EU, what the benefits of membership are.
your not offering ANYTHING other than your opinion, which your obviously entitled to. unfortunately mate, opinions mean very little when they are offered as justification, in this case, justification for the EU to even exist.

i have stated time and time again that the EU as an organization is corrupt, this fact which anyone can find out for themselves if they have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Jim, i have the proof as i have stated before, that the UK Govt of Edward Heath committed treason and sedition when his Govt took us into the EU because our constitution clearly states that Parliament may not hand authority of the nation to a foreign power unless the nation is defeated in war.

how can i be pro-EU when our Govt has betrayed and lied to the people, handed over to the EU our fisheries and gives over £1 million to the EU every hour of every day of every month year after year, and for what, what do we get in return?! some corrupt trade agreement which could easily have been achieved without the EU at a fraction of the cost!

how would you like it if suddenly the EU told France they could no longer build Renaults or any other French made car, and that all the car factories had to relocate to the UK?

if you can imagine something like that for just a few minutes you'll realize the ill feeling the Brits had towards the EU when they stole our fisheries with the help of our Govt.

As I said to Pookie post, I will reply later.

The EU?

It's the natural progression of our species. Unification due to maturation and enlightenment.

We realise war and continual struggle is difficult, ergo we start to unify through agreement averse to conquest. US did it first.. now the EU.. give it a thousand years or two and we may even have an official Global Government...although I seriously doubt it because we're still far too rash as a species to be sensible enough to unite in such a way it might take an Independence Day scenario from an extraterrestrial threat to cause such a thing.

On a serious note though I do believe the only true hope for our species is together...but perhaps not quite in the cliche way I just implied. A few genocides a long the way WOULD be necessary to remove the dilution from the gene/social pool in some areas..if not some prudent conditioning.

Genocides?

We might as well start with the royal families. They're an inbred bunch.

Or heck, they should start a "Genetic Diversification Programme for the Longterm Survival of Europe's Royal Families".

"GDP for LERF"



Heck, I wouldn't mind inheriting a castle. I'd be glad to diversify their genes.

Semper wrote:The EU?

It's the natural progression of our species. Unification due to maturation and enlightenment.

We realise war and continual struggle is difficult, ergo we start to unify through agreement averse to conquest. US did it first.. now the EU.. give it a thousand years or two and we may even have an official Global Government...although I seriously doubt it because we're still far too rash as a species to be sensible enough to unite in such a way it might take an Independence Day scenario from an extraterrestrial threat to cause such a thing.

On a serious note though I do believe the only true hope for our species is together...but perhaps not quite in the cliche way I just implied. A few genocides a long the way WOULD be necessary to remove the dilution from the gene/social pool in some areas..if not some prudent conditioning.

I would rather say my and Pookie's (his idea from the thread about cancer cure that turned wrong) ideas on how to solve the "problems" would be to follow.
Genocide isn't needed at all.
Reeducating them with a way or another...is a better idea. Do not forget, to appear as the "good side" and thus be more likely listened and followed by those who also have enough of problematic people (well it's mostly towards "parasites"), one hasn't to cross line. (meaning, yes to island isolation, reeducation camps, free work to society such as cleaning places...many possibilities)
If you want "followers", you don't cross the line. Otherwise, you would be seen as a threat as well, and lose most support you could have gathered. And that, isn't a good thing.
As for people with disease, if you really want them away, just bring back what Pookie suggested, the old way like leper islands...isolating.

But genocides, who the hell are we to decide to do that? None of us is a God...none of us has the right to decide so.



For EU part, I agree.

Who says I can't be Divine if I want to be? You don't have the right to deny me my divinity!!!

Agapooka wrote:Who says I can't be Divine if I want to be? You don't have the right to deny me my divinity!!!

I would very much like to be a Dr of Divinity. I am interested in theology and the title is magnificent to boot!

As for Genocides... oh yes! They'd be an integral part of a new world order. They'd be a keen answer for removing some illnesses (I do believe as stated by Universe elsewhere), removing some idiots from the world, lazy louts... criminals... it goes on. Although..perhaps letting a misanthrope decide is a bad choice.