UK, Brexit, and and the House of Lords

[DJQuag]

So last summer the UK had a mini Trump phenomenon. A bunch of pro business right wingers lied their asses off to the electorate, and a bunch of idiot voters voted to leave the EU without doing the slightest bit of research or fact checking. As an example of this, Cornwall gets a whole bunch of funds directly from the EU. Cornwall voted to leave. Immediately after the vote, you had Cornwall citizens asking if they were still going to get those EU funds.

*Dumbas$es.*

But in the past week or so I've seen the House of Lords push back a little against the government. They've refused to endorse the Parliament bill that allows to the PM to do whatever she pleases regarding Brexit. They've added riders requiring Parliamentary approval of whatever deal she makes. And it is so...refreshing.

Theresa May was against Brexit but now she is hard line "Europe can go *censored* itself." Because the Conservative party have identified that that kind of sentiment can win it elections by appealing to the uneducated and ignorant masses. The EU *will* consolidate, and whilst it will probably never be in the same breath as the US, Russia, or China, it will still be a world power.

The British people just voted themselves into the place of Cuba because they suffered grand delusions that Victoria's fat ass was still on the throne and Britain still had an Empire. Don't worry, America, we have the same problem here of old white people thinking it's fifty years ago and voting accordingly.

 In 25 or 30 years, we'll limply go back begging to be allowed to rejoin, and when we do, we won't have anywhere near the power or influence that we could have.

It's given me a new outlook. The Trump vote and the Brexit vote have cemented in my mind that in today's world social media and media in general have allowed the ignorant to be manipulated en masse. And I truly appreciate now the intent behind the Founder's view of the Senate. That these people would not be beholden to the whims of the ignorant electorate, but would be intelligent and proven people who could make decisions without worrying about Joe Six Pack. Kind of like how the Supreme Court works. I wish they'd stayed that way.

[TheDeamon]

It's given me a new outlook. The Trump vote and the Brexit vote have cemented in my mind that in today's world social media and media in general have allowed the ignorant to be manipulated en masse. And I truly appreciate now the intent behind the Founder's view of the Senate. That these people would not be beholden to the whims of the ignorant electorate, but would be intelligent and proven people who could make decisions without worrying about Joe Six Pack. Kind of like how the Supreme Court works. I wish they'd stayed that way.

Welcome to a long time ago for many other people. The 17th Amendment may have had some good intentions, but it was a slow acting poison for the Federal system. The states should never have surrendered their ability to self-determine their selection process for Senators. (There were more than a few states that held direct or even indirect("advisory") elections prior to the 17th amendment,  but that all went into the crapper 100 years ago)

The 6 to 8 year buffer(depending on the timing of state government elections)  that the Senate offered on "populist issues" was a big thing. That the state governments themselves had a means of potentially holding their Senators directly accountable also was a decent potential curb on that as well.

[DJQuag]

As the old saying goes,

"If you're under 30 and a conservative, you don't have a heart. If you're over 30 and a liberal, you don't have a brain."

I turned 30 not so long ago. I'm still what most would call a liberal, but I've swung a lot more towards the center on a lot of issues, and even the ones I haven't, I've gained a more pragmatic viewpoint.

[Seriati]

What strikes me is how little you understand the other side in writing a diatribe like that.  The fact is while the majority of the voters that approved it barely understood it, the same percentage of those that opposed it barely understood it as well.  Choosing to focus your "intelligent" criticism on the arguments of the simpletons on the other side is a total cop-out.

Trump got elected in the US because the Democrats refuse to acknowledge that many of their policies are widely opposed and unpopular.  Not because people are stupid or misinformed, but because their rationale interests are opposed to those policies and they voted those interests.

The impact on the UK remains to be seen, but there is no chance they'll find themselves in the position of Cuba.  The EU without the UK may end up being the less popular of the two entities.  While I can see the wisdom of involving the majority of the government in the final product (which is the idea behind the US requirement for Senate approval of treaties), anything more risks the UK being forced to negotiate against its own interests in the exit.  The House of Lords is an anachronism that should be reconsidered, and the idea that anyone should applaud it undermining the vote of the electorate is questionable.

[DJQuag]

So you're in favor of the original purpose of the Senate? If not, why even bother having two different sections of the legislature?

I completely understand the other side in the Brexit vote. They're wrong. They're ignorant. They were lied to. Even more then Trump, it cements the idea that the common man's vote needs a counterweight, because the average common man believes in Pizzagate and Birtherism. An entire united continent is going to be better off then a small country roughly the size of Arizona. Ironically,  the EU itself will probably be better off without the UK, as it was the UK's special privilege that prevented France and Germany from enacting reforms to bring the separate countries together.

The UK won't be. The UK is a small island country living off the fumes of an empire a century dead. It has nothing more special to offer then the Phillipines or South Korea, and once I realizes that, it will go crawling back to the EU.

And all because we were scared of brown people and white people who spoke a different language.

[DJQuag]

£1=$1.53, June 22nd 2016.

£1=$1.22, today.

Much better off.

That's not to mention the very real rumblings coming from the Scots about a new independence referendum. The Brexit vote could literally have ended the UK. The Scots feel closer to Europe then they do to England, and to be honest I don't blame them.

[Seriati]

I completely understand the other side in the Brexit vote. They're wrong. They're ignorant. They were lied to.

If you completely understand them, then in my view, you should be able to explain why they are right and why an intelligent person could reach the conclusion they did.  If you can do neither, you don't really understand them, at all and certainly not "completely."

I think both sides lie.  The EU bears no resemblance to what people understood it to be when it was formed.  There is every reason to believe that individual countries and governments make better decisions for their citizens than one size fits all decisions imposed from on high.  There is every reason to believe that unaccountable government will not be responsive to the citizens it claims to represent.  There are thousands, if not millions, of valid reasons it would be in the best interests of any one person, or of all people collectively, to exit the EU.

Even more then Trump, it cements the idea that the common man's vote needs a counterweight, because the average common man believes in Pizzagate and Birtherism.

Lol.  Voters on both sides have silly views, you get no points pretending that everyone on your side voted for perfect and intelligent reasons and everyone on the other side only did so because they were too dumb to understand how the voting apparatus works.

The "common man" does have a counterweight, other common men.  If you policies are really better, the "dumb sheep" are just as persuadable to your cause.  And lest you pretend a moral high ground, the pro-EU crowd used the same tactics, down to fear and misrepresentation that the other side did.

An entire united continent is going to be better off then a small country roughly the size of Arizona.

Better off than what?  And is it the job of the UK government to ensure that the other citizens of the EU are as well off as the UK's citizens, or to ensure that the UK's citizens are as well off as they can be? 

Ironically,  the EU itself will probably be better off without the UK, as it was the UK's special privilege that prevented France and Germany from enacting reforms to bring the separate countries together.

They may be more unified, but if they are, I'd expect their citizens to have even less say and a reduction of rights.

The UK won't be. The UK is a small island country living off the fumes of an empire a century dead. It has nothing more special to offer then the Phillipines or South Korea, and once I realizes that, it will go crawling back to the EU.

Maybe, maybe not.  There's nothing stopping the UK from putting in place better economic policies than Brussells will tolerate.  There's certainly nothing stopping the UK from enacting measures to protect itself from terrorism and influx of refugees with no cultural synergies.

And all because we were scared of brown people and white people who spoke a different language.

Is it?  Cause honestly, that's sounds like child's analysis to me.  Make a grown up case.  You can start how it's to the benefit of a country that believes in freedom, equality, the rights of women and homosexuality, to import a massive amount of immigrants who don't accept any of those things and who aren't required to change to become part of your country and its voting block.  For goodness sakes, you guys seem to think Trump should be banned for his views on women, and he's just a white guy, why would you let in other people with even more repugnant views just because they have brown skin?  Is it some kind of dare, where you have to prove you're not a racist by ignoring actual differences that go beyond skin color?

So you're in favor of the original purpose of the Senate? If not, why even bother having two different sections of the legislature?

Why don't you ask me what ever it is you want to know.  I said I'm in favor of having a legislative body approve treaties where an executive is empowered to negotiate them.  Seems like the best of both worlds, because you don't end up with a negotiation by committee that undermines your position, but you also don't end up with a single run away dictator making decisions by fiat.

[DJQuag]

I'm on a phone, so excuse me, my responses won't be as tidy as yours.

What I'm asking you is what is the value in having two different parts of the legislature when they're both beholden to Mr. Birtherism. Or to Mr. Hands Up, Don't Shoot. Whichever side tickles your fancy.

The original purpose of the Senate was to have educated men who were respected enough to be placed there by representatives, not by common vote. That's not the case today. Today, they have to worry about reelection. I think it defeats the point of their original purpose. As an aside, with gerrymandering, if the Senate were composed as originally purposed it would be overwhelmingly Republican in perpetuity.

In the case of the UK, the worst Islamic *censored* come from Pakistan. And the EU never had jurisdiction over who we accepted from there. That was on us, and our colonial history. Lower class people got huckstered due to a combination of lies revolving around giving EU money to the NHS (which they admitted was a lie within 12 hours of the result) and disliking all of those other white people moving here and taking our jobs. Except, just like the US, European immigrants overwhelmingly contributed more then they took.

The UK won't put in place better policies then Brussels. They may engage in American style race to the bottom tactics, but they are not as large or powerful as the US, and in the end, at best, we'll be sitting here in an oligarchy looking across the Channel in envy.

And you think unification means the end of human rights? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The EU has nothing more to fear then the US did, and everything to gain. Tell us please how human rights were lost due to the South losing the right to secede in the Civil War.

And saying the anti Brexit crowd used fear tactics is like saying telling a man about to jump off a cliff that he might not like the result is fear tactics. What we said was true.

[DJQuag]

If the British Pound Sterling is even on par with the US dollar at the end of Brexit negotiations, I will be astounded.

As for the Cuba comparison, the EU is not going to forget this. They won't be doing us any favors. We will be completely alone. Our PM has already said that she doesn't expect us to stay in the economic zone. They are going to have a bone to pick.

Forgive me for thinking that an entire united continent may have more leverage then one small island. (Or 3/4 an island, if the Scots leave, which would probably be for the best for them. They'd take our valued North Sea natural gas with them, as well.)

[TheDeamon]

£1=$1.53, June 22nd 2016.

£1=$1.22, today.

Much better off.

That's not to mention the very real rumblings coming from the Scots about a new independence referendum. The Brexit vote could literally have ended the UK. The Scots feel closer to Europe then they do to England, and to be honest I don't blame them.

The Scots are likely to regret such a choice in the long run. But it's their choice to make, for good and for ill. The EU is not long term viable, it probably has a few decades left on its shelf-life, but I'm comfortably certain it'll come apart in my lifetime due to demographic shifts, largely due to growing Islamic influences throughout its borders. One case where they wish they could solve their population decline problem through automation. Only it won't come soon enough to save them.

[TheDeamon]

The original purpose of the Senate was to have educated men who were respected enough to be placed there by representatives, not by common vote. That's not the case today. Today, they have to worry about reelection. I think it defeats the point of their original purpose. As an aside, with gerrymandering, if the Senate were composed as originally purposed it would be overwhelmingly Republican in perpetuity.

Or the Democratic Party would spend more time actually paying attention to rural issues so they could be politically competitive in those regions rather than ignore them. Which in turn would force the Republicans to seek out voters in the urban areas in turn.

It also ignores that the Democrats controlled most state houses 20 years ago. They still were near parity when Obama took office. The Republican(Tea Party) "Takeover" of state governments didn't really kick into gear until Obama took office, at which point the rural Democrats turned into an endangered species. Which opened the door to Gerrymandered state legislative districts following the 2010 Census results in 2011.

The UK won't put in place better policies then Brussels. They may engage in American style race to the bottom tactics, but they are not as large or powerful as the US, and in the end, at best, we'll be sitting here in an oligarchy looking across the Channel in envy.

And you think unification means the end of human rights? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The EU has nothing more to fear then the US did, and everything to gain. Tell us please how human rights were lost due to the South losing the right to secede in the Civil War.

And saying the anti Brexit crowd used fear tactics is like saying telling a man about to jump off a cliff that he might not like the result is fear tactics. What we said was true.

Difference here is the formation of the U.S. had the British Empire as well as the various European Colonial powers as a boogeyman prior to the Civil War. They were under the belief that they had to stand together, or they'd all fall to a foreign power separately. Central and South American independence, such as it was with our own meddling, only worked out for those nations because of the U.S. and the British Navy alike deciding to help defend them from European re-colonisation once they gained independence.

The Civil War is a different matter.

So it becomes a question of "What does the EU offer them that they cannot get as their own fully independent nation?" Mutual defense? NATO handles that. Which just leaves international trade and travel, and while the Eurozone is a very big economic block, the U.K. is a big economic block in its own right, and the EU isn't the only place the U.K. trades with.

[NobleHunter]

So it becomes a question of "What does the EU offer them that they cannot get as their own fully independent nation?" Mutual defense? NATO handles that. Which just leaves international trade and travel, and while the Eurozone is a very big economic block, the U.K. is a big economic block in its own right, and the EU isn't the only place the U.K. trades with.

The UK isn't a big economic block without access to the EU. A lot of its economic activity is providing access to the EU while letting banks and people avoid some of the more burdensome regulation. I don't think the UK (or whatever England and Wales will call themselves) has any notable economic features once they leave the EU.

The obvious replacement for Europe as a market and supplier is the US. Which seems poised to embark on a period of protectionism and possibly even economic imperialism. While actively questioning the value of NATO. So I don't think England and Wales should look for help from that quarter.

[TheDeamon]

The UK isn't a big economic block without access to the EU. A lot of its economic activity is providing access to the EU while letting banks and people avoid some of the more burdensome regulation. I don't think the UK (or whatever England and Wales will call themselves) has any notable economic features once they leave the EU.

Vestiges of empire, they're still sitting a boatload of capital accumulated during that era. There also a rather significant member of the "Anglo-sphere" which includes the United States for now, so time will tell. It's also a little early to call the success or failure of copy-cat Brexit efforts coming from other current members of the EU in the next few years, as the EU still seems to be pretty smug about what's happening to Britain. That's not a very good idea on their part, it's only going to give the anti-EU types more ammo within the EU.

The obvious replacement for Europe as a market and supplier is the US. Which seems poised to embark on a period of protectionism and possibly even economic imperialism. While actively questioning the value of NATO. So I don't think England and Wales should look for help from that quarter.

As part of the "Anglo-sphere" the UK is probably pretty safe from being on the receiving end of anything particularly nasty coming from the US. AFAIK, there isn't anything going on in US/UK trade that could be called particularly underhanded, at least on the UK side of things.

[NobleHunter]

All their capital is going to be in GBP. Good luck finding someone to take it. Anything that isn't a sweetheart deal would be nasty to the UK. I don't see Trump or his people pushing for a deal that isn't very lopsided to the US.

The problem is that without the EU, the UK is rather short on things other people want. Tourism is all well and good but it's not really a good industry to support 60 million people. Which isn't to say they couldn't come up with something but it might be rather hard to do when they've just wrecked their access to the largest market.

[TheDeamon]

Tech, Medical, and Ag. So long as Scotland sticks around they have oil and natural gas as well.

Sure their tech sector isn't as large as the US, but the US is huge compared to most other countries.

[Pete at Home]

If the British Pound Sterling is even on par with the US dollar at the end of Brexit negotiations, I will be astounded.

As for the Cuba comparison, the EU is not going to forget this. They won't be doing us any favors. We will be completely alone. Our PM has already said that she doesn't expect us to stay in the economic zone. They are going to have a bone to pick.

Forgive me for thinking that an entire united continent may have more leverage then one small island. (Or 3/4 an island, if the Scots leave, which would probably be for the best for them. They'd take our valued North Sea natural gas with them, as well.)

Or you could always stop robbing them and give them a better share for their gas and stop thinking of it as just yours.  Treat them with a teeny bit of respect and autonomy.  You know, like the EU failed to do with the UK, triggering the Brexit.

A few other things you have backwards.

1. Brexit wasn't a mini trump; Trump is a mini-Brexit.  We didn't start the fire; that was your baby.

2. AFAIK Brexit didn't happen because England wanted to protect slavery, so comparing Brexit to the US Civil War verges on blackface farce.  Please don't do that.

3. To my knowledge no one here said the Brexit was about human rights.  While Sharia zones certainly are a human rights issue, no one has contested your excellent point about your Pakistanis being the UK's main poison and not the EU's fault.  Nevertheless, it was fairly predictable that the general white prole concerns about Sharia London would become more strident in the wake of Cologne; it's understandable, even if not entirely fair, that many would view EU border rules as a forced Cologne colonic.

[DJQuag]

If the British Pound Sterling is even on par with the US dollar at the end of Brexit negotiations, I will be astounded.

As for the Cuba comparison, the EU is not going to forget this. They won't be doing us any favors. We will be completely alone. Our PM has already said that she doesn't expect us to stay in the economic zone. They are going to have a bone to pick.

Forgive me for thinking that an entire united continent may have more leverage then one small island. (Or 3/4 an island, if the Scots leave, which would probably be for the best for them. They'd take our valued North Sea natural gas with them, as well.)

Or you could always stop robbing them and give them a better share for their gas and stop thinking of it as just yours.  Treat them with a teeny bit of respect and autonomy.  You know, like the EU failed to do with the UK, triggering the Brexit.

A few other things you have backwards.

1. Brexit wasn't a mini trump; Trump is a mini-Brexit.  We didn't start the fire; that was your baby.

2. AFAIK Brexit didn't happen because England wanted to protect slavery, so comparing Brexit to the US Civil War verges on blackface farce.  Please don't do that.

3. To my knowledge no one here said the Brexit was about human rights.  While Sharia zones certainly are a human rights issue, no one has contested your excellent point about your Pakistanis being the UK's main poison and not the EU's fault.  Nevertheless, it was fairly predictable that the general white prole concerns about Sharia London would become more strident in the wake of Cologne; it's understandable, even if not entirely fair, that many would view EU border rules as a forced Cologne colonic.

Right. First of all, I'm with Scifibum. I don't enjoy talking to you. Your style of discourse makes the forum unpleasant when you're around. You always attribute the absolute worst to the people you're talking to. I'm not interested in it anymore. As far as I'm concerned, I won't respond to anything you say to my posts after this because it's just not worth it. But, just this last time, let's go through this lawyeresque obtuse bull*censored*.

When I used the word "us" I course meant the UK. If they go their own way, good for them, I envy them.The resources will be theirs outside of Putinesque shenanigans.  I'm currently looking for job opportunities in Scotland because I'd much rather be in the EU or at least in the common market then outside of it in a xenophobic country that still has delusions of being a world power.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery. Don't embarrass yourself. Seriati implied that Britain would have better human rights outside then in. My response was to that.

99 percent of Muslims I have met are peaceful and great people and I would literally rather die then give up secularism. The same secularism they would all agree to. "Those who would give up security for liberty deserve neither."

[Pete at Home]

Your style of discourse makes the forum unpleasant when you're around.

That's pretty hypocritical coming from someone who attacked my parenting and my children, to the disgust and horror of everyone who commented on it.  You made very clear then that your being an ass to me for the previous two years came from your grudge against me from being an alcoholic, because of your daddy issues.  So you're no one to lecture about unpleasantness.  I've never been as unpleasant as you.

You always attribute the absolute worst to the people you're talking to.

No, only to people who take pot shots at my children or similarly hateful things.  I don't, for example, attribute the worst, let alone the absolute worst, to Sci-Fi.

Since you've already said in public on this forum why you hate me, it's plainly hypocritical for you to pretend to be "with sci-fi" when his issues with me are nothing like yours.  SciFi doesn't have a problem with me being a dry alcoholic.  SciFi does not, to my knowledge, project his daddy issues onto me, as you admit to doing to me.  So get off my leg, DJQuag.  Jordan drove three hours from Atlanta with his husband to come see me just last week and we talked all half the day, then they drove home.   Jordan's been a better part of Ornery than you ever were, and he thought I was worth driving six hours to see just to talk another six hours.  Jordan's opinion has more weight with me than your daddy issues.

[Pete at Home]

Don't embarrass yourself.

Speaking of embarrassing yourself, you completely bungled and twerked around the quote:

"Those who would give up security for liberty deserve neither." [sic]

The actual quote from Ben Franklin, was:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

But your post-literate rendering of Franklin is nothing compared to the foolish substance of what you're claiming:

The Civil War wasn't about slavery. Don't embarrass yourself.

The Civil War was mostly about Slavery.  There were other issues, but the Civil War would have happened without those.  The Civil War would never have happened without Slavery.  I realize there is a school of brainwashing to support your view. the far right and the far left collude to this Big Lie that the Civil War wasn't really about slavery.  Even though Slavery was explicitly the main issue to the formation of the Confederacy and in the Secession of most slave states.  Not to mention that not a single free state seceded.  So the foolishness of your remark does not lie in your opinion that "the Civil War wasn't about slavery" but your utterly brainwashed assumption that one should be embarrassed for opining otherwise.  Most historians agree that Slavery was the main cause of the Civil War.

[DJQuag]

Yeah, keep on lecturing us on the definition of "is," Pete. Franklin's quote and what I said are so very, very different.

I'm an idiot because I can't even keep to my resolution not to respond to you for 24 hours. As a troll, you're masterful.

The Civil War was about the Southern states wanting to keep slavery and realizing that the Northern states and their population had an irrevocable command of federal law. They wanted state power to override that. They wanted to be able to step back and act as sovereign states when that didn't work. They got slapped down and told that Federal Law and Power are absolute. States don't have the right to leave the union.

If the same thing were to happen today it would be over gay marriage or gun rights or trans people using the toilet. But the underlying issue would be the same. Every history teacher I've ever had has said the same.

[DJQuag]

And the board is less active when you're actively posting, Pete. You're toxic. You can bring up me responding to personal attacks with personal attacks with all of the lawyeresque half truths and lies that you want, nothing is going to change that.

[Pete at Home]

Yeah, keep on lecturing us on the definition of "is," Pete. Franklin's quote and what I said are so very, very different.

Who were you quoting, if not Franklin?  You put the quotes on.

I'm an idiot because I can't even keep to my resolution not to respond to you for 24 hours. As a troll, you're masterful.

You say that you are an "idiot." Why would I have to be "masterful" as a troll to get a mere "idiot" (your word, not mine) to piss over his resolutions?

The Civil War was about the Southern states wanting to keep slavery --

Right there, you've conceded that you were full of poo when you said that the Civil War was "not about slavery."

and realizing that the Northern states and their population had an irrevocable command of federal law.

Rubbish.  6/9 of SCOTUS had voted for the Dredd Scott decision. 5/9 were actual southerners.

They wanted state power to override that. They wanted to be able to step back and act as sovereign states when that didn't work. They got slapped down and told that Federal Law and Power are absolute. States don't have the right to leave the union.

At which point they could have taken Secession to the Supreme Court.  And they wouldn't have seceded in the first place if it were not for the slavery issue.

[DJQuag]

"Who were you quoting, if not Franklin?  You put the quotes on."

Honestly can't tell if this is low level autism or deliberate obtuseness on your part.

[Pete at Home]

You can bring up me responding to personal attacks with personal attacks

You weren't responding to any personal attack here when you started the personal attacks on this thread.  You imported Sci-Fi's personal attack from another thread.

Bitching about "lawyerly tricks" is itself the oldest dirty lawyerly trick in the book, DJQuag.  Korax vs Tisias, 450 BC.  Tisias tries to get out of his student loans by saying that Korax, his teacher, is more eloquent than him and therefore shouldn't be listened to.  It's funny how the people who bitch most about "lawyerly" tricks are the ones who most resort to the cheapest crap anyone ever pulls in court.

Not to mention that your whole bit of white supremacist obfuscation about the Civil War (about rights of secession and NOT about slavery!) is about as "lawyerly" as you can get.

What Sci-Fi said hurt my feelings because I actually respect the guy.  You, it's hard to take you seriously since you admitted last year that your beef with me is all about alcoholism and your daddy issues.

[DJQuag]

You're a *censored*ed liar. I never admitted that. You're the board's best necroposter, I *censored*ing dare you. Bring up the supposed post. The best you'll get is me relating something and you reading into it.

[DJQuag]

I'd be kind of concerned if someone like you *did* respect me, Pete.

[Pete at Home]

"Who were you quoting, if not Franklin?  You put the quotes on."

Honestly can't tell if this is low level autism or deliberate obtuseness on your part.

99 percent of Muslims I have met are peaceful and great people and I would literally rather die then give up secularism. The same secularism they would all agree to. "Those who would give up security for liberty deserve neither."

See those things that I underlined?  Those are called quotes.  They indicate that you're quoting something that someone else said.  What you said, is the exact opposite of the out of context misquote used by really stupid libertarians: "Those who would give up security for liberty deserve neither."  (What Franklin actually said was more nuanced than the libertarian hatchet-job of the quote). 

so as best I can tell, you took a popular misquote, and then through some feat of philosophical dyslexia, turned it around so that it said the opposite of what you meant.

You're not actually a stupid person; you only get that way when you're very angry.

[DJQuag]

Okay, you're right. I transposed the words liberty and security. My bad. Anyone should really have been able to identify that as the typo it was, though, unless they were looking for something superficial to attack.

[Pete at Home]

I'd be kind of concerned if someone like you *did* respect me, Pete.

I believe you, and it's sad you don't realize how pathetic that is.  We had a friendly email exchange until late 2011 when I told the board about my alcoholism, and that's when you cut things off and started attacking me whenever I agreed with you or said something nice about one of your postings. 

Since you insist that identify where you said it, it wasn't until last year or so that you started bringing up your daddy issues into your attack on me, and projected that because your alcoholic daddy was mean to you that I must have been a bad father to my own children.  You actually said parent, not daddy.  But it became clear that it was your daddy issues, when you came to the defense of that UK top female cop who had exposed herself and abused power publicly to shame  a woman who had a tit job.  You said that the fact that she was drunk at the time totally excused her.  From which I infer that you defend mommy's alcoholism but demonize daddy's.  None of which would be any of my business if you hadn't made it my business by using your family life as a model to project my own.

So please keep your threat to just shut up and get off my leg and stop engaging me.  I'm not your daddy.  Shoo.  And don't blame me for being "masterful" when you cannot control yourself.  It's pathetic.

[DJQuag]

Again, Pete, you've brought up topics literally years old to attack people. Do it. Show me where I said that, and prove it isn't your own infantile mind trying to force people's words into what you want them to mean.

[DJQuag]

And yeah, I've already admitted you're an unavoidable blight on the board when you're actively posting and driving people off. You definitely get my goat. So I'll more then likely just keep responding to you.

[DJQuag]

In other news Sturgeon has called for a new referendum on Scottish independence. I can't blame her for choosing Europe over an England still convinced that it's a world Imperial power.

[Pete at Home]

Right. So what's the actual difference between what I said and Franklin's quote, beyond the specific words used. Or are you yelling at me for calling something cold when any idiot knows that it's icy?

"Those who would give up security for liberty deserve neither." [sic]

The actual quote from Ben Franklin, was:
Quote
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Okay, you're right. I transposed the words liberty and security. My bad. Anyone should really have been able to identify that as the typo it was, though

Took you long enough.

, unless they were looking for something superficial to attack.

*You* talk about superficialities?  Your civil war argument is the epitome of superficiality.

And yeah, I've already admitted you're an unavoidable blight on the board when you're actively posting and driving people off. You definitely get my goat. So I'll more then likely just keep responding to you.

Way to take responsibility for your behavior.

Again, Pete, you've brought up topics literally years old to attack people.

Not here.  Just raised what you said 17 months ago to put your attacks on me into context.  But you've embraced a white supremacist's argument from the last millennium to "embarrass" me.  Politics make strange bedfellows, and you never know who will become a sheet-head's catamite in order to embarass someone on an obscure internet discussion board.

[DJQuag]

You're right, Pete. It did take me long enough. Guess I'm just used to you being full of *censored*. My bad for not taking the broken clock axiom into account.

And talk all the *censored* you want, slavery was only the de jure issue of the day. The real thing the South was upset about was that their voice wasn't relevant at the federal level anymore. The specific issue doesn't matter. It was about the right to leave the Union. If it were today, they'd be leaving over the right to not allow gay marriage. The real cause was state's rights.

Lastly, have a heartfelt yuck fou for equating me with white supremacists.

[Pete at Home]

You're right, Pete. It did take me long enough.

It had nothing to do with time.  You went from phone chatting emailing friend to implacable enemy on the very day that I posted that I had an alcohol problem.  And you didn't explain why until years later, 17 months ago.

slavery was only the de jure issue of the day.

That's crap.  The Civil War would not have happened if it were not for slavery.

The real thing the South was upset about was that their voice wasn't relevant at the federal level anymore.

Do you really believe that nonsense?  They owned SCOTUS.  Dredd Scott.  They seceded because Lincoln, an abolitionist, had won the presidency.  They seceded after the election but before his inauguration.

Name one issue other than slavery that the South was unified on, that weighed in favor of secession.  Tariffs?  Nope!  Some confed states were big fans of tariffs, others opposed them.  You're reading history from the sheet-head book.

Lastly, have a heartfelt yuck fou for equating me with white supremacists.

A white supremacist's catamite is not a white supremacist, and neither are you.  It's sad, frightening, and pathetic to see you espousing all sorts of things that are beneath you, just to get at me.

[DJQuag]

"Not here"

Well, yeah. You haven't, which is why I'm asking you to. You've said that I've "admitted" to things. I'm asking you to post the frigging quote. As opposed to me saying something and you reading into it what you want to see.

[DJQuag]

Yes, Lincoln won the presidency.

Despite *every southern state* voting against him.

It's almost like, *gasp,* the South realized that they no longer had real say in federal government and if they wanted to keep a measure of self sovereignty (aka state rigghts) they would have to leave the union.

[Pete at Home]

"Not here"

Well, yeah. You haven't, which is why I'm asking you to. You've said that I've "admitted" to things. I'm asking you to post the frigging quote. As opposed to me saying something and you reading into it what you want to see.

What, just so you can call me a necrophile again?  No thank you.  There aren't any newbies, and I think we all remember what you said.  You were suspended for saying it, and I was suspended for my response to you.

[Pete at Home]

Yes, Lincoln won the presidency.

Despite *every southern state* voting against him.

Doh.  Every southern state voted for a brand new party that they'd just pulled out of their ass. 

It's almost like, *gasp,* the South realized that they no longer had real say in federal government

That's what their elites told them, but since the idiots had split to a fourth party, all it actually meant is that the South lacked the power to UNILATERALLY determine who was president.

[DJQuag]

Right. Pete At Home, necrophile at large, declines to bring up the quote that backs up his assertions. He's never declined to do it when he thought it benefitted *him* before, not ever, but I guess he's turned a new leaf. Hurray for you, Pete. I'm completely sure it has nothing to do with you running your mouth off like a jackass and not being able to back it up.

DJ: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[DJQuag]

What the elites told them doesn't matter a fart in the wind. If they did what they did because some huckster told them the bible was wrong, it wouldn't matter. The discussion here is over why they did what they did, not the validity of their beliefs.

[Pete at Home]

Right. Pete At Home, necrophile at large, declines to bring up the quote that backs up his assertions. He's never declined to do it when he thought it benefitted *him* before, not ever, but I guess he's turned a new leaf. Hurray for you, Pete. I'm completely sure it has nothing to do with you running your mouth off like a jackass and not being able to back it up.

Does anyone other than DJQ want me to dig up that old thread?  Anyone else sign onto his hypocritical two-faced request (insulting me for doing what he demands that I do)?

[Pete at Home]

What the elites told them doesn't matter a fart in the wind. If they did what they did because some huckster told them the bible was wrong, it wouldn't matter. The discussion here is over why they did what they did, not the validity of their beliefs.

Right, but out of the other side of your face, you said "they realized."  You don't "realize" something that isn't true.  Using terms like "realize" makes you the "huckster" here. 

In fact, the reason for all those poor whites to go abandon their starving families and feed themselves into the Confederate meat grinder was slavery.  Because John C Calhoun had convinced them that the existence of slaves kept them from being the bottom rung of society.

[DJQuag]

What the elites told them doesn't matter a fart in the wind. If they did what they did because some huckster told them the bible was wrong, it wouldn't matter. The discussion here is over why they did what they did, not the validity of their beliefs.

Right, but out of the other side of your face, you said "they realized."  You don't "realize" something that isn't true.  Using terms like "realize" makes you the "huckster" here. 

In fact, the reason for all those poor whites to go abandon their starving families and feed themselves into the Confederate meat grinder was slavery.  Because John C Calhoun had convinced them that the existence of slaves kept them from being the bottom rung of society.

And why did Calhoun want them to feel that way? Because he wanted the Southern states to agree on the righteousness of their acrions.

It doesn't matter if it were slavery or gay marriage or housing Syrian refugees, the true root was the feds being able to tell states what to do. We feel the way we do today (states need to bend over to the feds) entirely because our country had a *censored*ed *war* over it.

[DJQuag]

Right. Pete At Home, necrophile at large, declines to bring up the quote that backs up his assertions. He's never declined to do it when he thought it benefitted *him* before, not ever, but I guess he's turned a new leaf. Hurray for you, Pete. I'm completely sure it has nothing to do with you running your mouth off like a jackass and not being able to back it up.

Does anyone other than DJQ want me to dig up that old thread?  Anyone else sign onto his hypocritical two-faced request (insulting me for doing what he demands that I do)?

Hahaha. He said I said something. I challenged him to prove it. He declines because of the sanctity of the board and he doesn't want to be a necrophile.

*Pete at Home.*

Hahahahaha.

[DJQuag]

In other news Sturgeon has called for a new referendum on Scottish independence. I can't blame her for choosing Europe over an England still convinced that it's a world Imperial power.

Bumping for the sake of the thread.

[Pete at Home]

In fact, the reason for all those poor whites to go abandon their starving families and feed themselves into the Confederate meat grinder was slavery.  Because John C Calhoun had convinced them that the existence of slaves kept them from being the bottom rung of society.

And why did Calhoun want them to feel that way? Because he wanted the Southern states to agree on the righteousness of their acrions [sic].

Wrong again.  Calhoun never supported secession.  Calhoun wanted the people of the South to agree on the righteousness of SLAVERY.  Period.   He invented Southern Pride out of plain cloth and he wove it around the "peculiar institution" of slavery.  He used Roman Empire atrocities to justify and glorify slavery in the south.

[Pete at Home]

Right. Pete At Home, necrophile at large, declines to bring up the quote that backs up his assertions. He's never declined to do it when he thought it benefitted *him* before, not ever, but I guess he's turned a new leaf. Hurray for you, Pete. I'm completely sure it has nothing to do with you running your mouth off like a jackass and not being able to back it up.

Does anyone other than DJQ want me to dig up that old thread?  Anyone else sign onto his hypocritical two-faced request (insulting me for doing what he demands that I do)?

Hahaha. He said I said something. I challenged him to prove it. He declines because of the sanctity of the board and he doesn't want to be a necrophile.

On the contrary, I'm happy to look it up, provided (1) that someone other than you agrees that I need to source that notorious and painful argument, and (2) you identify which statement that I cited that you are contesting as a "lie."  In other words, which fact are you disputing?  (a) that you accused me of being a bad parent because I was an alcoholic (b) that you cited your own parent's alcoholism as proof that alcoholics are always crappy parents, or (c) that you later sprang to the defense of a British chief cop, saying that her abhorrent behavior was excused by the fact that she was drunk at the time?

I'm not defending the "sanctity" of the board; I'm taking steps to avoid getting suspended again because of my response to your provocations.  It's called taking responsibility for my own actions.  Try it some time.

[DJQuag]

In this thread ; Pete makes his case for alcoholics being okay parents.

Hahahaha.

And yeah totes dude. You said I said something. The mod would absolutely suspend you for linking to where I said what you said.  *That's* why you refuse to do it. Ain't because the quote doesn't exist. Ain't because you read stuff into things that weren't there and decided it was the Truth Forevermore.

Pathetic.

[TheDeamon]

In the vein that Alcoholics never truly "recover" and will always be "in recovery." I'm going to have to say that "being an alcoholic" has little bearing on parental ability.

What does impact parental ability/effectiveness is being drunk, and failing to limit or otherwise control or properly "plan" for said drunkenness. Alcoholic or not.