Grooming Gangs + Tommy Robinson Thread

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 384 of 470 < 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 >

Matov 01 Nov 21 12.33pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays 'Only on a theoretical level.' LOL. It is almost beautiful. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

01 Nov 21 12.33pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

'Only on a theoretical level.'

LOL.

It is almost beautiful.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 01 Nov 21 2.21pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It did, and it must. No-one argues about that. The argument is about what and how. Canute complaining about the tide making his feet wet didn't actually get him very far. Even in, the very unlikely, event that we could stop all immigration now, we would still have lots of issues to handle. If we manage to increase the controls on immigration, those issues will still be here, and new ones would slip through the finest mesh of nets. We need practical solutions. Not ideological dreams. A common fallacy... in fact Canute expected his feet to get wet as he was proving the point that not even a King could stop a natural earth force "The first written account of the Canute episode was in Historia Anglorum (The History of the English People) by chronicler Henry of Huntingdon, who lived within 60 years of the death of Canute (1035 AD). According to the story, the king had his chair carried down to the shore and ordered the waves not to break upon his land. When his orders were ignored, he pronounced: "Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless and there is no King worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven and earth and sea obey eternal laws," (Historia Anglorum, ed D E Greenway). The account shows Canute setting out to demonstrate that the tide would come in regardless, says Professor Simon Keynes of the department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic at the University of Cambridge. But most modern-day analogies of Canute turn Henry of Huntingdon's account on its head. "They are mostly misused in order to illustrate something being swamped like King Canute." A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 01 Nov 21 2.21pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It did, and it must. No-one argues about that. The argument is about what and how. Canute complaining about the tide making his feet wet didn't actually get him very far.

Even in, the very unlikely, event that we could stop all immigration now, we would still have lots of issues to handle. If we manage to increase the controls on immigration, those issues will still be here, and new ones would slip through the finest mesh of nets.

We need practical solutions. Not ideological dreams.

A common fallacy... in fact Canute expected his feet to get wet as he was proving the point that not even a King could stop a natural earth force

"The first written account of the Canute episode was in Historia Anglorum (The History of the English People) by chronicler Henry of Huntingdon, who lived within 60 years of the death of Canute (1035 AD).

According to the story, the king had his chair carried down to the shore and ordered the waves not to break upon his land.

When his orders were ignored, he pronounced: "Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless and there is no King worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven and earth and sea obey eternal laws," (Historia Anglorum, ed D E Greenway).

The account shows Canute setting out to demonstrate that the tide would come in regardless, says Professor Simon Keynes of the department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic at the University of Cambridge.

But most modern-day analogies of Canute turn Henry of Huntingdon's account on its head.

"They are mostly misused in order to illustrate something being swamped like King Canute."

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Nov 21 2.39pm
Originally posted by Badger11 Right so it never occurred to the Remain campaign, the SNP, Greens etc to challenge it in court. Well that just confirms how useless a campaign Remain ran or they took legal advice and were told they would not win because it was fair. And then we go back to Parliament who chose to approve it you want it both ways. You want MPs to have the final say which they did and then you complain they made the wrong decision. Edited by Badger11 (01 Nov 2021 12.24pm) I have no idea whether challenging it in Court was ever considered. People like me didn't want ANY campaigns. When you don't want a referendum, you don't want a campaign. In the event, it wasn't so much useless as near to impossible. Selling sexy images of golden tomorrows full of enhanced funds for the NHS, easy to do trade deals and no immigrants is much easier than trying to defend the boring old status quo. It's a wonder, and a credit to the wise, that it was so close. For believers in our parliamentary democracy, like me, the right place to have dealt with this was in Parliament. They make the law, so they can change it if it no longer serves. That remains the case. Unfortunately Johnson and his cohort bullied enough Tories into submission and Corbyn failed completely. Which is why this chaos lies at the door of the 2019 Parliament. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 01 Nov 21 2.39pm

Originally posted by Badger11

Right so it never occurred to the Remain campaign, the SNP, Greens etc to challenge it in court. Well that just confirms how useless a campaign Remain ran or they took legal advice and were told they would not win because it was fair.

And then we go back to Parliament who chose to approve it you want it both ways. You want MPs to have the final say which they did and then you complain they made the wrong decision.

Edited by Badger11 (01 Nov 2021 12.24pm)

I have no idea whether challenging it in Court was ever considered. People like me didn't want ANY campaigns. When you don't want a referendum, you don't want a campaign.

In the event, it wasn't so much useless as near to impossible. Selling sexy images of golden tomorrows full of enhanced funds for the NHS, easy to do trade deals and no immigrants is much easier than trying to defend the boring old status quo. It's a wonder, and a credit to the wise, that it was so close.

For believers in our parliamentary democracy, like me, the right place to have dealt with this was in Parliament. They make the law, so they can change it if it no longer serves. That remains the case. Unfortunately Johnson and his cohort bullied enough Tories into submission and Corbyn failed completely. Which is why this chaos lies at the door of the 2019 Parliament.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Nov 21 2.42pm
Originally posted by becky A common fallacy... in fact Canute expected his feet to get wet as he was proving the point that not even a King could stop a natural earth force "The first written account of the Canute episode was in Historia Anglorum (The History of the English People) by chronicler Henry of Huntingdon, who lived within 60 years of the death of Canute (1035 AD). According to the story, the king had his chair carried down to the shore and ordered the waves not to break upon his land. When his orders were ignored, he pronounced: "Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless and there is no King worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven and earth and sea obey eternal laws," (Historia Anglorum, ed D E Greenway). The account shows Canute setting out to demonstrate that the tide would come in regardless, says Professor Simon Keynes of the department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic at the University of Cambridge. But most modern-day analogies of Canute turn Henry of Huntingdon's account on its head. "They are mostly misused in order to illustrate something being swamped like King Canute." Thanks. I did actually know that but thought a simple analogy, albeit historically incorrect, would serve to make the point. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 01 Nov 21 2.42pm

Originally posted by becky

A common fallacy... in fact Canute expected his feet to get wet as he was proving the point that not even a King could stop a natural earth force

According to the story, the king had his chair carried down to the shore and ordered the waves not to break upon his land.

But most modern-day analogies of Canute turn Henry of Huntingdon's account on its head.

"They are mostly misused in order to illustrate something being swamped like King Canute."

Thanks. I did actually know that but thought a simple analogy, albeit historically incorrect, would serve to make the point.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 01 Nov 21 3.32pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Thanks. I did actually know that but thought a simple analogy, albeit historically incorrect, would serve to make the point. A gift, that keeps on giving. Never.Ever.Change. xxxx "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

01 Nov 21 3.32pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Thanks. I did actually know that but thought a simple analogy, albeit historically incorrect, would serve to make the point.

A gift, that keeps on giving. Never.Ever.Change. xxxx

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online 01 Nov 21 4.00pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Yes it is! You cited "Greek origins". As I am sure you know, only male citizen could vote at that time. No women, no "foreigners" or their descendents, no slaves. So only about 30% of the adult population. So it's theoretically democratic, but practically not. Democracy has evolved somewhat since then, though no doubt you would prefer the original system. It's a Greek word for god's sake....it's literally Greek origins....I said closer not exact...Jesus. While there were restrictions on who could vote the original democracy from Greece is definitely closer to referendums than.... the frankly far more diluted parliamentary representative system. As for how I think the voting system should work....I have my opinions but it's hardly something I've spent much time thinking about. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Nov 2021 4.00pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online

01 Nov 21 4.00pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Yes it is! You cited "Greek origins". As I am sure you know, only male citizen could vote at that time. No women, no "foreigners" or their descendents, no slaves. So only about 30% of the adult population.

So it's theoretically democratic, but practically not.

Democracy has evolved somewhat since then, though no doubt you would prefer the original system.

It's a Greek word for god's sake....it's literally Greek origins....I said closer not exact...Jesus.

While there were restrictions on who could vote the original democracy from Greece is definitely closer to referendums than.... the frankly far more diluted parliamentary representative system.

As for how I think the voting system should work....I have my opinions but it's hardly something I've spent much time thinking about.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Nov 2021 4.00pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Nov 21 4.47pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays It's a Greek word for god's sake....it's literally Greek origins....I said closer not exact...Jesus. While there were restrictions on who could vote the original democracy from Greece is definitely closer to referendums than.... the frankly far more diluted parliamentary representative system. As for how I think the voting system should work....I have my opinions but it's hardly something I've spent much time thinking about. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Nov 2021 4.00pm) No you did not! You weren't talking about word origins. You claimed they were more democratic. If you think only 30% of adults is democratic, well I don't. I think ALL adults voting for representatives, a much more democratic system. It's evolved. For the better. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 01 Nov 21 4.47pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

It's a Greek word for god's sake....it's literally Greek origins....I said closer not exact...Jesus.

While there were restrictions on who could vote the original democracy from Greece is definitely closer to referendums than.... the frankly far more diluted parliamentary representative system.

As for how I think the voting system should work....I have my opinions but it's hardly something I've spent much time thinking about.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Nov 2021 4.00pm)

No you did not! You weren't talking about word origins. You claimed they were more democratic. If you think only 30% of adults is democratic, well I don't. I think ALL adults voting for representatives, a much more democratic system. It's evolved. For the better.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 01 Nov 21 6.36pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle No you did not! You weren't talking about word origins. You claimed they were more democratic. If you think only 30% of adults is democratic, well I don't. I think ALL adults voting for representatives, a much more democratic system. It's evolved. For the better. getting back on the subject of the OP, and democracy. who voted for a weak toothless administration ? harmless in the face of mass organised rapes across twenty or thirty years. who voted for that sh1tshow ? Eze Peasy at Anfield....
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 01 Nov 21 6.36pm

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

getting back on the subject of the OP, and democracy.

who voted for a weak toothless administration ? harmless in the face of mass organised rapes across twenty or thirty years.

who voted for that sh1tshow ?

Eze Peasy at Anfield....

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyboy1978 03 Nov 21 6.57am
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio getting back on the subject of the OP, and democracy. who voted for a weak toothless administration ? harmless in the face of mass organised rapes across twenty or thirty years. who voted for that sh1tshow ? Wisbech Eagle
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyboy1978

03 Nov 21 6.57am

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

getting back on the subject of the OP, and democracy.

who voted for a weak toothless administration ? harmless in the face of mass organised rapes across twenty or thirty years.

who voted for that sh1tshow ?

Wisbech Eagle

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online 03 Nov 21 7.50am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle No you did not! You weren't talking about word origins. You claimed they were more democratic. If you think only 30% of adults is democratic, well I don't. I think ALL adults voting for representatives, a much more democratic system. It's evolved. For the better. No representatives cannot express what each individual thinks on a vote like a referendum can. The Swiss use this system now far more than us and I'm saying that while not advocating for a different system as I've not seriously considered the alternatives.....not that what we think matters. You go on about only 30 percent voting in ancient Greek times well we still exclude people now via age and status. Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Nov 2021 7.52am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online

03 Nov 21 7.50am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

No representatives cannot express what each individual thinks on a vote like a referendum can. The Swiss use this system now far more than us and I'm saying that while not advocating for a different system as I've not seriously considered the alternatives.....not that what we think matters.

You go on about only 30 percent voting in ancient Greek times well we still exclude people now via age and status.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Nov 2021 7.52am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 03 Nov 21 7.58am
In England in the 1800s less than 3% were eligible to vote. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

03 Nov 21 7.58am

In England in the 1800s less than 3% were eligible to vote.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 03 Nov 21 9.10am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle In England in the 1800s less than 3% were eligible to vote. [Link] That's true, it rose to about 7% after the 1832 Reform Act and grew substantially over the years with subsequent reforms. Edited by georgenorman (03 Nov 2021 9.10am)
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

03 Nov 21 9.10am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

In England in the 1800s less than 3% were eligible to vote.

[Link]

That's true, it rose to about 7% after the 1832 Reform Act and grew substantially over the years with subsequent reforms.

Edited by georgenorman (03 Nov 2021 9.10am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 384 of 470 < 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Grooming Gangs + Tommy Robinson Thread

Site Map

Sponsors