| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Project Fear was invented by remainers, no food , no medicine,no flights (remember)Originally Posted by lardy
The people who setup the 'insurance policy' had to leave, so that May was untainted when she picked up the baton. Cameron could hardly be the one to bring those issues into play, when he himself was the one who worded the referendum!
What he really meant to say was Project Sour Grapes
We haven’t left yet. I sincerely hope we get a deal but in case of no deal a lot of of people (not remaining politicians) but experts in their field like those in the haulage industry.
What a lousy, stinking farce. For what??
Have a whoosh, my friend.
What a meaningless comment !
Going back to my original post which was erroneously tagged as an alternative "project fear". No , because it was hardly intended to effect public opinion , which was the purpose of "project fear".
What's more, it was and is an objective observation of history and human nature. In Ireland, Cyprus, the USA in comparitvely recent times stretching back to the Classical period, national independence has always been a genie which cannot be put back into the bottle once raised in any significant way. It has often been temporarily resisted though, and the result of that has always been the same.
It's no surprise that Lardy and Heisenberg can't or won't see the distinction between the two concepts, but mine is based upon human experience and history rather than political spin, whilst the other is based upon nothing but interested parties taking it upon themselves to predict future events in a particular way which suits their agenda.
For someone who does detailed post analysis, subtleties seem to be a problem for you
Yes, project fear was meant to suggest that by saying brexit would have bad effects was simply fear mongering.
Now you're saying that brexit would make everyone happy but remaining would lead to serious civil disorder! If a remainer had made the exact opposite argument they'd rightly be laughed at. Or it would be called... dun dun dun...Project Fear.
The country is too divided for there to be any mutually acceptable outcome, and that includes the outcome that you want.
post-truth.jpg
Leavers knew they were voting for no deal?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCS_FvNXoAERVWs.png (link as the image uploaded was small)
Interesting that all our ccmb leavers were in the enlightened 3.7%, who knew we were such an intelligent bunch.
Thanks for posting this very interesting info which is a record of what people were thinking just before the Referendum as opposed to what they now say they were thinking. Over 78 per cent of those intending to vote Leave thought it very unlikely, fairly unlikely or didn't know when it came to us losing access to the single market.
Data like this shows the hoops Brexiteers have had to jump though in the past three and a bit years, whether it was the no deal Brexit which virtually everyone in the main parties was saying would never happen in June 2016 or the proroguing of Parliament that Hancock, Rudd, Morgan, Gove and Johnson were all heard denouncing at the beginning of Newsnight on Wednesday.
On the subject of Newsnight, what cowardice from the Government not to send a representative to appear on there on the last two nights - Labour have often been just as bad when it comes to antisemitim mind.
For someone who does detailed post analysis, subtleties seem to be a problem for you
Yes, project fear was meant to suggest that by saying brexit would have bad effects was simply fear mongering.
Now you're saying that brexit would make everyone happy but remaining would lead to serious civil disorder! If a remainer had made the exact opposite argument they'd rightly be laughed at. Or it would be called... dun dun dun...Project Fear.
The country is too divided for there to be any mutually acceptable outcome, and that includes the outcome that you want.
No. You're not getting this are you ?
Brexit is about national independence and all the rest is incidental.
Historically , once a substantial group start demanding independence , it eventually comes to be, often by military means.
You might not be aware, for example , that opinion in Ireland was pretty evenly split before Home Rule, however when independence happened , those who'd wanted to remain under British rule soon accepted it - this is because they would be the less adventurous people who feared change and wanted to maintain the status quo, ( that means the way things are ).
Had the republicans, or nationalists been defeated on the Bill, they wouldn't have forgotten their aims, as we see and have seen in Northern Ireland, which remained in the UK, but where despite being a minority, the Nationalists have continued an armed struggle to this very day.
Similar events can be observed in the former 'American Colony', Kenya, Cyprus, India etc etc ad inf. Nor is it new thing - Dace, Palmera or Germania in the Ancient World would tell the same story and exhibit the same patterns.
It's what invariably happens in the affairs of man, and what I want to happen has nothing to do with it.
The whole point of studying History , ( properly), is to observe these patterns of human behaviour, which don't alter, and perhaps avoid some of the unpleasant outcomes which happen when uneducated men take the helm and steer us back toward war and carnage.
HE WAS MAKING A JOKE.
Grant Shapps appears to have drawn the short straw and is doing the rounds putting the Governments case.
Where's Dace? Palmera is a place near Valencia! You're not getting yourself confused with Dacia and Pannonia, are you?
Just a friendly tip; it's often useful to wear glasses when cursorily inspecting Wikipedia.
QUOTE=Dorcus;5001458]Where's Dace? Palmera is a place near Valencia! You're not getting yourself
Just a friendly tip; it's often useful to wear glasses when cursorily inspectiDacia and Pannonia, are you?
Just a friendly tip; it's often useful to wear glasses when cursorily inspecting Wikipedia.[/QUOTE]
Well, thank you for your unsolicited advice. You can spell it Palmyra if you like, depending on how you'd like to express Judeo Arameic letters in English, but it's the same place, and it was on the other side of Syria. It went to war with Rome after its agreement with them for independence was not kept to , and that you see is why I drew the comparison.
Pannonia, on the other hand was located roughly where Hungary is today and, as you will know as an accomplished classical scholar, did not go to war with Rome for independence , but was conquered by the Magyars.
I should think it's easy to confuse these two very distant and different places if you're relying on Google, but fortunately I don't have to.
Now, Dacia is the name of a province in the modern Romanian language which overlaps, but does not exactly correspond with the province which the Romans called "Daci", the ablative of which is "Dace".
-Non ducor, duco !
Well, thank you for your unsolicited advice. You can spell it Palmyra if you like, depending on how you'd like to express Judeo Arameic letters in English, but it's the same place, and it was on the other side of Syria. It went to war with Rome after its agreement with them for independence was not kept to , and that you see is why I drew the comparison.
Pannonia, on the other hand was located roughly where Hungary is today and, as you will know as an accomplished classical scholar, did not go to war with Rome for independence , but was conquered by the Magyars.
I should think it's easy to confuse these two very distant and different places if you're relying on Google, but fortunately I don't have to.
Now, Dacia is the name of a province in the modern Romanian language which overlaps, but does not exactly correspond with the province which the Romans called "Daci", the ablative of which is "Dace".
-Non ducor, duco ![/QUOTE]
I'm glad you don't feel yourself to be lead Sir Jim!
You are correct on two assumptions: yes my response was unsolicited because I am not a solicitor and yes, being a classical scholar is one amongst many of my personas.
However, as you are clearly so knowledgeable about Latin, I'm curious as to why you employed the ablative case in your earlier post when referring to Dacia when there was clearly no agency involved. Surely you should have used the Nominative case in that instance, don't you agree Philip?
Well, of course it's quite possible to solicit without being a lawyer. Indeed I have seen many young ladies convicted of it at the Marylebone Magistrates Court.
You're probably right about using the nominative if you're going to submit it to the Latin master for marks, but I really didn't expect such thorough scrutiny in a reference to Brexit. I think the point remains and I'd have thought a classical scholar would be unlikely to confuse Palmyra with Pannonia.
Interesting that you use the term "persona" , which I assume should have " dramatis" after it. Which other parts have you played I wonder - did I see you in that thing where they put the whole " Shropshire Lad" into a series of short mimes ?
Anyway, I'm not going to attack you too much because it's a refreshingly intelligent post in a desert of ****ing ignorance.
Post analysis: fail
I think you meant "dramatis personae"; I didn't choose that epithet because I'm not playing the role of actor in this instance.
I was genuinely confused by your reference to "Palmera" and in the context of your allusion to Dacia I was willing to ascribe the error to autocorrect in deference to your stated knowledge, in view of Pannonia's proximity to Dacia. I'm afraid your analysis does not alter my opinion that nationalism is evil.
No, cause that'd be plural and in this case it's only the one actor.
Of course I could have claimed a typo or auto correct, but as I've told you, I don't tell lies.
Leaving all that bollocks aside, that's a very broad statement about Nationalism being evil you know. Is Scottish nationalism evil ?
What about Welsh nationalism ?
I'm a bit shocked actually that anyone regards Mahatma Ghandi , who was an Indian Nationalist , as evil, but I suppose you must if that's what you think about nationalism.
Do you disapprove of the nations who fought to free themselves from the Nazi Empire and the Warsaw Pact as evil too , insisting as they were upon nationalism ?
Well I'm quite surprised that you take this view of these people and nations I must say.
I think it adds to the debate. Our no deal enthusiasts don't appear to be so interested though.
Yes, I listened to a recording of his interview with Nicky Campbell as I was driving to the game yesterday- it was a pretty friendly affair in which he was asked "your heart's not really in this is it?".
Strange isn't it.
My own favourite is ‘bring on WTO’
A request for an explanation is usually then bluffed and blustered away.
Tory’s are a bunch of lying dictators. Summed up perfectly here.
https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1167528494303252480?s=21
Thats the problem these days you can't tell folks jokes from their child like insults.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
