Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2021 9:53:13 GMT
I’m seriously considering blocking people who keep quoting him << blocked >>  |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jan 25, 2021 11:11:00 GMT
Nobody is blocking you for your ideological views. They're blocking you for the long-winded and tedious manner in which you express them. Let's be real; if I was posting detailed cases that defended & justfied the viewpoints said types supported, I highly doubt they would have blocked me in the first place (1). Hence why I suspect that the real reason why I have been blocked by said users is because they couldn't handle the criticism I was making against their viewpoints; especially considering that said criticism I was making was written with the aim of stating why said viewpoints where wrong (2), not just merely stating that they are wrong. (1) Especially when one considers some of the posts made by users who have decided to block me. (2) A suspicion that was formed by the fact virtually none of those who have blocked myself made a real effort to defend their viewpoints in response to my own criticism of them.
I have not blocked you. However, I have given up reading your posts because of the lack of brevity, the poor expression and the tedious referencing style. I only came to this one as I was looking for something else. You don't need to reference like this ( 1). It looks messy and puts people off. It's also the mark of someone who wishes to show that they're well read and give the impression that they're cleverer than they are. I'm sure you're not in that category, so maybe best not to do it. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 25, 2021 12:34:58 GMT
Personally have never seen the need to block anybody, just skim over their posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 25, 2021 13:01:55 GMT
I'm grateful to the Hon Member for introducing me to a new word.
But what does "compresentive" mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 25, 2021 13:05:17 GMT
A lot of the EU problems would actually be solved by both becoming a Sovereign Federal State (aka a European Federation) & replacing their current Laissez-Faire Capitalist Economic Model with a Corporatist/Dirigisme one instead. Which would also provide a proper seperation of powers between the Centre and the States (which the EU currently lacks) alongside allowing for a more democratic political structure compared to the current European Union (1). (1) Since (should a European Federation be sucessfully formed) the Council of the European Union would likely be scrapped while the European Commission would be likely be replaced by a more conventional Executive Branch, one appointed by the President of the European Federation (who really should be elected by the European Parliament). Thus meaning that all European Laws must be approved by a democratically elected European Parliament. Yeah, good luck with that!  |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Jan 25, 2021 14:33:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by London Republic on Jan 25, 2021 15:59:12 GMT
I’m seriously considering blocking people who keep quoting him You know for someone who supports a political ideology that claims to support "free speech", you sure love to show how much of a hypocrite you are when it comes to applying such a principle to viewpoints you violently disagree with. Likewise; if you are that mentally fragile that cannot handle my occasional detailed criticism (of your prefered political beliefs) to this extent, then perhaps you should ask yourself some difficult questions about the political beliefs you hold.
Because no matter how many times you lash out against anyone who likes to tell politically inconvenient truths (such as myself); the "painful" reality is that said truths don't just go away by silencing those who express it, unless of course you decide to embrace living in a political fantasy land like @boogieeck has done.
|
|
|
|
Post by London Republic on Jan 25, 2021 16:02:15 GMT
I'm grateful to the Hon Member for introducing me to a new word. But what does "compresentive" mean? I was meant to write "comprehensive", so I apologise for the typo error (which I have now corrected). |
|
|
|
Post by London Republic on Jan 25, 2021 16:07:43 GMT
Yeah, good luck with that! If the Europeans want to see the EU project survive and avoid vassalage with the likes of America or China, they would be wise to embrace such a reform. Likewise if they are concerned about support for such a reform; then they need to make more of an effort to establish a "European" National Identity, especially when the lack of said identity has undermined the European Project from day 1. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jan 25, 2021 17:06:03 GMT
In summary: Abolish the federation, convert into a single unitary state. So much of what you are arguing for is very explicitely *BANNED* by the very form that the American federation is structured. You seem to forget that what I was actually talking about was the establishment of a New Political & Economic Consensus, the introduction of a New South African-Style Constitution (1) and a somewhat more Centralised Federal System. In contrast I have said nothing about "Abolishing any Federation"; so if you are going to criticise my proposals, then the very least you could do is criticise what I have actually proposed. (1) Least we forget that South Africa was established as a Federal State and remains one to this day.
You're fighting against the very /form/ of the USA as an entity made up of multiple entities. The Oath of Allegiance, Pledge of Allegiance & Oath of Office all acknowledge the United States being a single sovereign nation that people should pledge allegiance to. So while the United States does consist of many States and Regions, at the end of the day its one nation above all else. "To solve the problems of the EU, abolish individual countries." A lot of the EU problems would actually be solved by both becoming a Sovereign Federal State (aka a European Federation) & replacing their current Laissez-Faire Capitalist Economic Model with a Corporatist/Dirigisme one instead. Which would also provide a proper seperation of powers between the Centre and the States (which the EU currently lacks) alongside allowing for a more democratic political structure compared to the current European Union (1). (1) Since (should a European Federation be sucessfully formed) the Council of the European Union would likely be scrapped while the European Commission would be likely be replaced by a more conventional Executive Branch, one appointed by the President of the European Federation (who really should be elected by the European Parliament). Thus meaning that all European Laws must be approved by a democratically elected European Parliament.
While it is a position that can be argued for, you're asking people to eliminate their very existance. Nope; I am actually asking for a New Political & Economic Status Quo (involving needed Political & Economic reforms) that would actually improve peoples lives. And that's before approaching the inefficiencies of scale that results from huge unitary states. cf. Star Wars, Asimov's Foundation, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, China.... One cannot really use Star Wars as a good example of " why huge unitary states don't work" considering how absurd some of its plot points are. Although if one wants to bring up examples of Science Fiction to back up ones argument, then I might as well bring up the example of Star Trek to back up my arguements. Likewise what all those examples do actually share is Bad Political Leadership, something that can cripple any state no matter if they are a "huge unitary state" or a smaller state as the examples of Uganda, Somalia and North Korea also show. Regardless; while I do acknowledge that larger states do need to operate under some sort of Federal System (1), the seperation of powers should be done on a basis that accepts the facts on the ground. Hence why it would make sense (for example) for both Law Enforcement & Education to become a solely Federal Responsiblity in the United States, considering the fact that both the American Education System and Law Enforcement are no longer fit for purpose in this day & age.
(1) Especially an important aspect of leadership is knowing when to delegate tasks.
This is poorly structured. You do not need to reference in this fashion immediately after the paragraph in question. Or, indeed, in this fashion at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Jan 25, 2021 17:31:47 GMT
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,715
|
Post by mboy on Jan 25, 2021 17:33:43 GMT
Either that or another strand of the biggest grift in human history.
|
|
|
|
Post by London Republic on Jan 25, 2021 17:40:55 GMT
I have not blocked you. However, I have given up reading your posts because of the lack of brevity, the poor expression and the tedious referencing style. I only came to this one as I was looking for something else. Again; I only write "long" posts when I am either criticising other viewpoints, defending & justifing my own viewpoints or proposing solutions to problems. Hence why they only consist of around 10% of the posts I write. Likewise the reason why I include references (i.e. weblinks) in my posts is to prove that the statements I am making are actually correct, espeically considering that there are certain people in politics (and in this forum) that have a bad relationship with the evidence & facts.
You don't need to reference like this ( 1). It looks messy and puts people off. It's also the mark of someone who wishes to show that they're well read and give the impression that they're cleverer than they are. I'm sure you're not in that category, so maybe best not to do it. The reason why I tend to add additional points (seperate from the paragraphs) to my posts is to allow for additional information to be added in a way that does not affect the narrative flow of the various paragraphs that form said post; simply because no matter how long or short any of my posts are, I still want them to be readable.
I would agree however that it does look a little messy, so I will try and reduce the number of addtional points in relation to future posts.
This is poorly structured. You do not need to reference in this fashion immediately after the paragraph in question. Or, indeed, in this fashion at all. To be fair, it would have indeed been better if I had simply incorporated the 2nd & 3rd additional points into the paragraphs themselves. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,772 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 25, 2021 19:14:43 GMT
LR addresses the points that JGH posted. This is poorly structured. You do not need to reference in this fashion immediately after the paragraph in question. Or, indeed, in this fashion at all. On the contrary, that *is* the canonical method of quoting on the internet - and in almost all written media. An etiquette sadly dying on the Web. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jan 26, 2021 9:25:32 GMT
This is poorly structured. You do not need to reference in this fashion immediately after the paragraph in question. Or, indeed, in this fashion at all. On the contrary, that *is* the canonical method of quoting on the internet - and in almost all written media. An etiquette sadly dying on the Web. I was referring to this practice: (1). There is no need to insert a reference into a one paragraph statement. Is two paragraphs or expand the original one. To do otherwise looks sloppy. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,772
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 26, 2021 11:37:15 GMT
On the contrary, that *is* the canonical method of quoting on the internet - and in almost all written media. An etiquette sadly dying on the Web. I was referring to this practice: (1). There is no need to insert a reference into a one paragraph statement. Is two paragraphs or expand the original one. To do otherwise looks sloppy. I do that when referring to URLs where it would be clumsy to include it in the body.[1] [1]Footnote not needed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 12:05:24 GMT
You seem to forget that what I was actually talking about was the establishment of a New Political & Economic Consensus, the introduction of a New South African-Style Constitution (1) and a somewhat more Centralised Federal System. In contrast I have said nothing about "Abolishing any Federation"; so if you are going to criticise my proposals, then the very least you could do is criticise what I have actually proposed. (1) Least we forget that South Africa was established as a Federal State and remains one to this day.
The Oath of Allegiance, Pledge of Allegiance & Oath of Office all acknowledge the United States being a single sovereign nation that people should pledge allegiance to. So while the United States does consist of many States and Regions, at the end of the day its one nation above all else. A lot of the EU problems would actually be solved by both becoming a Sovereign Federal State (aka a European Federation) & replacing their current Laissez-Faire Capitalist Economic Model with a Corporatist/Dirigisme one instead. Which would also provide a proper seperation of powers between the Centre and the States (which the EU currently lacks) alongside allowing for a more democratic political structure compared to the current European Union (1). (1) Since (should a European Federation be sucessfully formed) the Council of the European Union would likely be scrapped while the European Commission would be likely be replaced by a more conventional Executive Branch, one appointed by the President of the European Federation (who really should be elected by the European Parliament). Thus meaning that all European Laws must be approved by a democratically elected European Parliament.
Nope; I am actually asking for a New Political & Economic Status Quo (involving needed Political & Economic reforms) that would actually improve peoples lives. One cannot really use Star Wars as a good example of " why huge unitary states don't work" considering how absurd some of its plot points are. Although if one wants to bring up examples of Science Fiction to back up ones argument, then I might as well bring up the example of Star Trek to back up my arguements. Likewise what all those examples do actually share is Bad Political Leadership, something that can cripple any state no matter if they are a "huge unitary state" or a smaller state as the examples of Uganda, Somalia and North Korea also show. Regardless; while I do acknowledge that larger states do need to operate under some sort of Federal System (1), the seperation of powers should be done on a basis that accepts the facts on the ground. Hence why it would make sense (for example) for both Law Enforcement & Education to become a solely Federal Responsiblity in the United States, considering the fact that both the American Education System and Law Enforcement are no longer fit for purpose in this day & age.
(1) Especially an important aspect of leadership is knowing when to delegate tasks.
This is poorly structured. You do not need to reference in this fashion immediately after the paragraph in question. Or, indeed, in this fashion at all. If I referenced my uni work like that, my lecturers would have a fit. Although I guess it's not as bad as referencing a paper by the person who marks your essay and spelling their surname wrong |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Jan 26, 2021 12:22:59 GMT
Trump 2024, SAVA?🤔
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 26, 2021 13:24:22 GMT
To which some might reply "thanks, but we just have?"  |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jan 26, 2021 14:08:27 GMT
Or Save America Donald.... So Trump 2024 SAD |
|
