StarGateWars Forums

[KMA]Avenger wrote:A comparison between the EU and the Nazi's can be made. Hitler and his Nazi party DID NOT seize power, they were granted power by the peoples mandate. by the same token, the EU has been mandated by people who have been deceived. it all started with economic treaties "which is good for jobs" they said, now it is a bureaucratic monster which is swallowing whole nations and has destroyed more jobs than it has created...unless people haven't noticed, nearly all of our production is outsourced to other country's where labour is exploited. all the while jobs have been lost here, the people who now have those jobs work for peanuts which has only helped to lower EVERYBODY'S living standards.
And now just as the Nazi's did, the EU is demanding more power which you are all to eager to grant.

I am not saying the EU will turn into an all conquering armed force, i submit they do not need to do it by force because they have done it with deception and the pen!


I also submit to you Jim that you have no understanding how money is created or how it works, therefore you will not be able to understand just how evil bailouts are, because if you did understand you would tell the EU to get lost and the so called PIGS nations to get out of the EU ASAP.

Just because I do not agree with you doesn't mean I don't know how currency works. Seriously...
By insinuating this, you mean the people who followed courses about monetary system and understood it are automatically anti EU and all those who are pro EU don't know how money works. This is even more wrong than comparing EU to Nazi empire. Anyway, it's clear you aren't a historian, else it wouldn't come in your mind to search for "keywords" in describing of this or that political entity.

Your whole speech about Nazi vs EU is mixing different elements. You include globalization as being part of EU. It is something not particular to EU, it reborn *after* the creation of EU in the late 1960s-early 1970s (the first era of globalization was before WW1). I might understand the fact of comparing both just to see how they are different, but I would draw much different conclusions.
Nazis were elected. Yes. But, the difference is that a proper totalitarian regime (USSR, Nazis, Mao's TPRC, Mussolini's Italy) is that not only does it have an economic system of its own but also everything with social daily life. As I said countless times, propaganda media with no ability to access other forms of medias is part of a proper totalitarian regime. I'm starting to be fed up that you willingly take bits of these regimes to pretend that EU is similar.
Heck, Hitler did use capitalism, so capitalism links to Nazism? Hitler used Volkswagen brand as propaganda, thus Volkswagen are still evil brand 65 years after Hitler's downfall? Stop with Godwin arguments lol.
Of course you will see some similarities with such system, but these aren't sufficient if you take the whole two things differently into account. European Union isn't Fourth Reich. There is no "Supremacy Race" or whatever. There is no empire economy with as I said already many times expropriations of conquered nations (for the second time, Poland doesn't have to give % of its industry to "behind the curtain all powerful ruling entity" of the EU). There is no empire-altogether for the victory of New Nazism. This is just an "alliance" that was made up fifty four years and obviously evolved as the European and worldwide socio-politico-economical context evolved. The "founding fathers" each had their agendas, and as the very interesting analyzing article regarding EU's so called everlasting fate of a superstate reminded, they didn't have same goals, and things changed a lot since then. When you start a project and it grows and goes on for decades, it's unlikely you will be able to follow the plan you didn't think about when you started this project. Nobody knew Slovenia, Poland and Estonia to name a few, would have joined EU in the 2000s back in 1957. So let's stop with the overall planned plan to conquer the world that lasts decades and survives to generations. Because the founders are mostly all gone. Politics changed since then, globalization came in between. You cannot say what was planned back then is still being done now. You cannot plan in such a long term.
Nazism goal was simple, conquer nations, involve them into the empire and turn all the economy of conquered ones in favor of the ruling nation. This all must last one thousand years. Economy of Nazi empire based on protectionism, they even built a substitute of rubber to avoid to import it. In my ideas of slight protectionism in EU I am nowhere as near as wanting to go same path as during the 1930s with every country acting isolationist and wishing to survive by themselves. Third Reich economy, after the great works of highways (same as Roosevelt did in the USA to fight joblessness and improve the infrastructures.) and other things like this, only focused on war economy. After being in the war, they used the conquered nations for both their workforce and existing industries to serve their effort of war. You were forced to go to Germany to work, and Germany expropriated nations from a % of their production. Obviously, political parties were forced mostly to enter in the resistance because elections were put on a hold. Left wing and right wing in France entered resistance because they were really conquered. Like, as I said already, short supply of food, risk every street to be arrested and accused to be against "the state" and imprisoned. Not to mention what happened to homosexuals and the jews...it was part of the economy, even though it contributed not *that* much, concentration camps participated in the economy, maybe not as much as Stalin's gulags, but still...

Kit-Fox wrote:I see Pops has no understanding of Hyperbole eh Mezz?

Nice selection of images which it seems elicted the exact response from Pops as was probably expected

Hyperbole are a typical non argument and I treated them as such. Godwin arguments are overrated and often are non arguments. Even though it's very popular among some political parties and groups. Same as the accusation of racism. "Oh you are racist", is the argument used when one wants to find a way to win an argument without wanting to find a proper one. As if it was auto-win. However, it isn't, especially when people in front aren't impressed by basic "autowin" strategies. I personally am not.

@ LA, you started it mate by falsely claiming that the anti-EU campaign in the UK was led by the BNP ( nationalist racists ). If you dont like silly links & comparisons then dont make them.

If you need proof of how bad the EU is for the UK, look at the Euro which every economic expert agree we would have been in a far worse position if we had joined ( even those pro-EU in the UK say this ), look at the failed interest rate mechanism which we pulled out of when it started dragging us down, look at the stupid limits put on farming, in the UK we consume lots of milk and were more than self sufficient, now thanks to the EU quota system we were forced to reduce production, take peoples jobs & businesses, and import from Europe !!!! Thats just one of hundreds of insane regs & laws enforced on us against our will.

Trade with Europe, fine, trades are done when they benefit both sides. Governed by Europe, hell NO, one size will never fit all, centralisation reduces choice & prevents communities/countries from doing whats best for themselves, the EU version of democracy is a joke, the Euro has failed, open borders for workers has meant massive migrant workforces undercutting UK citizens in the workplace, and generally the laws/regs etc the EU have already produced have been bad for the UK.

It is the reasons above that will make the UK vote against joining the EU if ever given the choice, NOT nationalist pride or any of the other silly scaremongering the the Pro-EU people come out with.







To get this back on topic, this thread is NOT about the pro's & cons of the EU, this is meant to be about the UK not getting the referendum we were promised by the 2 biggest political parties in the UK, first Labour, then Conservatives.

Fact is making such a massive change to the way we live, the way we're governed, who governs us, and massively reducing our ability to vote for what we want HAS to be a bad thing. It kills what little credibility our mainstream political parties have left by breaking election promises, drags us unwillingly into deals we dont want, and when the EU goes tits up as we all know it will, it will drag our strong economy down to the level of the poorer countries in Europe.

MEZZANINE wrote:@ LA, you started it mate by falsely claiming that the anti-EU campaign in the UK was led by the BNP ( nationalist racists ). If you dont like silly links & comparisons then dont make them.

If you need proof of how bad the EU is for the UK, look at the Euro which every economic expert agree we would have been in a far worse position if we had joined ( even those pro-EU in the UK say this ), look at the failed interest rate mechanism which we pulled out of when it started dragging us down, look at the stupid limits put on farming, in the UK we consume lots of milk and were more than self sufficient, now thanks to the EU quota system we were forced to reduce production, take peoples jobs & businesses, and import from Europe !!!! Thats just one of hundreds of insane regs & laws enforced on us against our will.

Trade with Europe, fine, trades are done when they benefit both sides. Governed by Europe, hell NO, one size will never fit all, centralisation reduces choice & prevents communities/countries from doing whats best for themselves, the EU version of democracy is a joke, the Euro has failed, open borders for workers has meant massive migrant workforces undercutting UK citizens in the workplace, and generally the laws/regs etc the EU have already produced have been bad for the UK.

It is the reasons above that will make the UK vote against joining the EU if ever given the choice, NOT nationalist pride or any of the other silly scaremongering the the Pro-EU people come out with.







To get this back on topic, this thread is NOT about the pro's & cons of the EU, this is meant to be about the UK not getting the referendum we were promised by the 2 biggest political parties in the UK, first Labour, then Conservatives.

Fact is making such a massive change to the way we live, the way we're governed, who governs us, and massively reducing our ability to vote for what we want HAS to be a bad thing. It kills what little credibility our mainstream political parties have left by breaking election promises, drags us unwillingly into deals we dont want, and when the EU goes tits up as we all know it will, it will drag our strong economy down to the level of the poorer countries in Europe.

Big thumbs up mate!

Removed

[KMA]Avenger wrote:#-o

Yes I disagree and think differently to you.

If you need proof of how bad the EU is for the UK, look at the Euro which every economic expert agree we would have been in a far worse position if we had joined ( even those pro-EU in the UK say this ), look at the failed interest rate mechanism which we pulled out of when it started dragging us down, look at the stupid limits put on farming, in the UK we consume lots of milk and were more than self sufficient, now thanks to the EU quota system we were forced to reduce production, take peoples jobs & businesses, and import from Europe !!!! Thats just one of hundreds of insane regs & laws enforced on us against our will.

You guys have a strong currency which is among the main currencies, and sure it's been a while since that, but used to be *the* currency of the world back when the UK was the first trading nation of the world, in front of USA, France and Germany. When China was nowhere near as now and same for Japan. Ironically, the only other nation which did the risk bet of entering the EU was Germany. Sure Germany are the champions of non price competitiveness, but I am sure they are still not so fond of, matter of their history, to have a currency that isn't strong.
Just a question, does UK deal with inflation? From an outside point of view it doesn't appear clear, though I am still curious about that.

Trade with Europe, fine, trades are done when they benefit both sides. Governed by Europe, hell NO, one size will never fit all, centralisation reduces choice & prevents communities/countries from doing whats best for themselves, the EU version of democracy is a joke, the Euro has failed, open borders for workers has meant massive migrant workforces undercutting UK citizens in the workplace, and generally the laws/regs etc the EU have already produced have been bad for the UK.

People who are against the EU mention usually either Greece which was indeed not ready to enter the Euro zone, I concede that argument. Or they use the example of the UK, because either they live there or use it as the "alternative" example. But, I will say that neither does the "Euro is total win " NOR the "Euro is utter fail" is valid. Euro is good for France, I know that pretty well. Euro is good for some nations, it isn't for others, that is, in time of crisis. At least there isn't the issue of having to devalue the money and screw up the ones who saved (this was the main argument in the 1920s before the recession in my nation to go against devalue of currency, among the right wing and main industrials), yes some economies excessively rely on this thinking it will boost their exports, as if imports were minor factor, gas prices skyrocket that is usually something people like to avoid in their plans. I would gently remind the example of the 1970s oil-related crisis (and the issue of stagflation). Some nations might not need much imports but that's not the case for all of them.
About immigration, I personally agree some part of immigration are a problem, however, one thing must be said, we maybe make ourselves too attractive to these migrants in some ways. I'm talking about the aside from Europe ones or at least those who are travelling jobless people.



I'm starting to wonder though, what's the point? Both sides have their arguments, but considering it seems that both sides are hardcore pro/anti it seems to me we can go eternally until one gives up. There I'm not talking about the UK's case particularly but the EU in general.

Jim, I fear the only way you will understand is when the EU does finally collapse

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Jim, I fear the only way you will understand is when the EU does finally collapse

Then, it will be time to jump the bridge for some people due to the ruin.
Just like some people did back in 1929...

That's not something i'd like to see, but i would like to see certain "people" hang from the highest yard arms for financial terrorism and treason!

Removed

Kit-Fox wrote:Again, according to the UN charter each member is entitled to self determination


so why cant the UK choose freely for itself?

Are you kidding!?! you cant have freewill and choice in a communist....i mean collectivist...wait, that's the same thing...i mean a union!

Don't you remember when Nigel Farage lambasted the EU leadership and told them that they were dangerous people because they told Ireland they couldn't have an election: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WGjszGksPc



Bad KF bad!

Collectivist?? Communist??

Where are the kolkhoze then? And who were the Koulaks?

An open prison is still a prison. but i prefer this;

"A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose."
Gertrude Stein

Removed

Edit