• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Custody: the European Court of Human Rights condemns Paris

At least we in Europe have referendums on joining the EU and changes ..

EU propaganda, easily debunked. As with the EU's communist and Nazi 'New Order' predecessors, its poisoned sweets don't have to be true, so long as they taste nice.


1975 - Referendum in Britain, with a skewed question asking the Public if they want to remain in a European trading association. Swallowing the lies of Edward Heath and down, our people believed that's all it was.

1999-2009 - Labour signed us up to the Amsterdam and Lisbon Treaties without permission, sealing Britain's fate as a vassal of the EU. Along the way, promises of referenda on the single currency and 'cunstitutional' treaties were made and dumped. The post-accountability EU scarecely took the party to court to uphold democracy now, did it?
 
Last edited:
In title yes.. in power.. hell no.. he is nothing but a glorified office manager. He can comment all he wants on policy and make a fool of himself, but in reality he has zero power.

More EUro-shame. If this claim is true that that only proves that the EU President, EU Commission, Parliament and others the fanatics claim have 'no power', have no right to exist. Such organisations only exist to subjugate the nations of Europe for their own collective ego. It's power for its own sake.

But if such a claim is false then it only shows how our deceitful masters continue to lie about power and sovereignty in complete spite of their own peoples. It's power for its own sake.



As it turns out, the Presidency has great powers.

President of the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


EU President: new post designed to give Europe more power - Telegraph

Politically Confused: EU 'president' Removes National Veto Powers

Scum, and all who follow him!
(I'm sick of being civil about these swines!)
 
Last edited:
EU propaganda, easily debunked. As with the EU's communist and Nazi 'New Order' predecessors, its poisoned sweets don't have to be true, so long as they taste nice.


1975 - Referendum in Britain, with a skewed question asking the Public if they want to remain in a European trading association. Swallowing the lies of Edward Heath and down, our people believed that's all it was.

1999-2009 - Labour signed us up to the Amsterdam and Lisbon Treaties without permission, sealing Britain's fate as a vassal of the EU. Along the way, promises of referenda on the single currency and 'cunstitutional' treaties were made and dumped. The post-accountability EU scarecely took the party to court to uphold democracy now, did it?

President of the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's remarkable stuff RoP.

It seems there are several Presidents involved in the EU with each shouldering each other to gain more control over the beast. It is strange that anyone could believe this might work. I can certainly understand a NAFTA type of agreement where sovereignty isn't involved but this has evolved into something few had apparently expected.

So how do you get out of it? I always felt that Britain should sign on to NAFTA, though with a different acronym of course. NAFTA like agreements have already spread to Central and South America and now Japan wants in. It really just modernizes GATT.
 
PeteEU

No, we elect our politicians directly.

And that has exactly what to do with my comment?

It's well you added "for the most part". How's that goofy EU Constitution thing coming along? Still voting until you make the right decision?

There are 25+ nations in Europe, all with different constitutions and rule sets. The EU Constitution is long gone as you well know. It was replaced by new bits to the old treaty to reflect the expansive nature of the EU.

We voted to join NAFTA and a damn good thing it was and is.

The US did not.. Canada maybe dont know. The US has never had a national referendum on anything as far as I know.

Name another place on the planet then that has a bloodier history than Europe. Can you think of any??

Asia.

No, they are not as well known, for sure, but when the Chinese adopted Communism, another incredibly and unforgivably stupid idea by the Europeans, the results are well known. Forty million dead is it, in China alone?

Interesting you choose to focus on the last 60 years and ignore the 4000+ years of Chinese history.... then again was to expected from a right winger.... very selective..

Oh.My apologies. So it's your claim that members of the EU have managed to stay at peace with each other lately only because of the EU. But you will admit to some internal struggles within these members states. And you apparently believe that the more countries there are admitted to the EU that the more peace will spread? is that your take?

My claim was and is,that the EU played a major role for the peace among the "usual suspects" in Europe over the last 50+ years. Denying this is denying the freaking obvious. And there are always internal struggles in member states.. Quebec in Canada comes to mind. Like it or not, there has not been a war between nations in Europe since WW2.

My point was, and continues to be, that Europe is a mess and a danger to the world. They appear to have learned nothing from history, especially their own history, and seem doomed to repeat it. Your simplistic idea that belonging to the EU will somehow transform the continent into a place of good will and free trade is as ludicrous as any other scheme Europeans have come up in the last 100 years. And while embracing each other in this Kumbaya moment, those who you've been at war with for as long ad human memory exists, you've also alienated your old friends, as though trashing your former Allies was a prerequisite to EU membership. This was a huge error over the long term.

LOL Europe a mess? Compared to what? This comment clearly shows how little you know about the EU and Europe.

Then what are you laughing at?

Your idiotic comment.

Too true! And with those "political issues" enjoying some odd twists.

So what? Political issues have cost human lives for 10s of centuries.. the human race is and has always been very barbaric.

Yes. we know. We lost hundreds of thousands of good men and women in European created wars.

Ahh the classic.."**** I am loosing an argument so throw in a reference to WW1 and WW2"

The EU had nothing to do with that. American (and Canadian) forces did. You can sign all the treaties and agreements you choose to, and have throughout history, and they'll always eventually be ignored. A missile base cannot.

Eh? Not everything involves the cold war you know... And yes what I wrote is correct. Your idiotic attempt to twist the story over to only the cold war is a big fail.

Then why have him there? This is just another example of how bureaucratic and inefficient the EU is. It's all about symbolism. But what happens when this bureaucracy gains power, and unlimited power? I doubt this position will remain a symbol for long. It's there for a reason.

Because of the way the rotating system worked. They needed a person to keep the policy and administrative systems going despite the rotation leadership principle. Do your own research if you are that ignorant on the subject.

You watch Fox News? Great! Who is your favorite, and least favorite commentator?

No favourite. They twist facts and make **** up so much that none of them deserve any respect... the rocket pack LA police is till my fav bs story Fox has run with.

Least favourite is O'Rielly and Hannity, but close are the idiots of Fox & Friends.. They all have no respect for the truth or facts what so ever.
 
More EUro-shame. If this claim is true that that only proves that the EU President, EU Commission, Parliament and others the fanatics claim have 'no power', have no right to exist. Such organisations only exist to subjugate the nations of Europe for their own collective ego. It's power for its own sake.

But if such a claim is false then it only shows how our deceitful masters continue to lie about power and sovereignty in complete spite of their own peoples. It's power for its own sake.



As it turns out, the Presidency has great powers.

President of the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


EU President: new post designed to give Europe more power - Telegraph

Politically Confused: EU 'president' Removes National Veto Powers

Scum, and all who follow him!
(I'm sick of being civil about these swines!)

In other words, you got no clue as usual..... You even read your links?
 
There are 25+ nations in Europe, all with different constitutions and rule sets. The EU Constitution is long gone as you well know. It was replaced by new bits to the old treaty to reflect the expansive nature of the EU.

Then why have another Constitution? Why have more "rule sets"? Has anyone ever given a reasonable explanation? I think we all know it will be ignored anyway..
The US did not.
.

The US has a different system in that their Senators are elected to represent their constituents differently.

Canada maybe dont know.

We had a referendum in Canada.


You think so? What evidence is there of that?
Interesting you choose to focus on the last 60 years and ignore the 4000+ years of Chinese history.... then again was to expected from a right winger.... very selective..

Well if you prefer we can look at WWI , WWII. the 100 years war, the 30 years war, and so on. Was there ever a time when there wasn't conflict and death in Europe? As well as exporting it of course..
My claim was and is,that the EU played a major role for the peace among the "usual suspects" in Europe over the last 50+ years.

You might as well say it was fluoride in the water. It makes as much sense.

Denying this is denying the freaking obvious.

Obvious to you perhaps, but surely few rationale people would give this idea serious consideration. Maybe God simply decided to give you a break.
And there are always internal struggles in member states.. Quebec in Canada comes to mind.

With any research you'll find that Canada's "internal struggles" are substantially different, and far less bloodthirsty, than those in Europe.
Like it or not, there has not been a war between nations in Europe since WW2.

Of course. Europe had "The war to end all wars" and 20 years later they were at it again in WWII. This history had to change which is why the Americans and Canadians established bases there. It was far cheaper to babysit Europeans than it was to lose more of our people and treasure in more European conflicts. You simply cannot be trusted.
LOL Europe a mess? Compared to what? This comment clearly shows how little you know about the EU and Europe.

I've been there. Spent a lot of time there. It's going down the tubes. The only question remaining is how long it might take. The general consensus is two generations max.
So what? Political issues have cost human lives for 10s of centuries.. the human race is and has always been very barbaric.

In Europe anyway. We've managed to get along quite well on this side of the Atlantic.

Ahh the classic.."**** I am loosing an argument so throw in a reference to WW1 and WW2"

Losing an argument? To you?

And what's wrong with mentioning wars? You feel you weren't responsible for them, as well as the losses felt by others who tried to save you from yourselves?
Eh? Not everything involves the cold war you know...

Yes, I know. I've hit on a variety of subjects, as you might see. Which "Superpower" did you support? As if i didn't know!!
And yes what I wrote is correct. Your idiotic attempt to twist the story over to only the cold war is a big fail.

No, it's wrong but you're obviously a real deal European. I'll give you that.

Because of the way the rotating system worked. They needed a person to keep the policy and administrative systems going despite the rotation leadership principle. Do your own research if you are that ignorant on the subject.

Right. They sit on their finger and rotate. That's called progress where you're from.
No favourite. They twist facts and make **** up so much that none of them deserve any respect...

So where do you get the bulk of your news then? Who do you find to be the most reliable? The most fair and balanced?

the rocket pack LA police is till my fav bs story Fox has run with.

The source was "Weekly World News" and Fox owned up to the error in repeating the story.

Least favourite is O'Rielly and Hannity, but close are the idiots of Fox & Friends.. They all have no respect for the truth or facts what so ever.

Did you know they have guests on their shows with differing opinions?
 
In other words, you got no clue as usual..... You even read your links?

What, the ones about the boss actually being in charge, contrary to your sneering claims that he's actually rather harmless?

What's the point of his multi-billion Pound fleet of henchpersons, last word on our foreign policies and salary so huge it makes even other Europhiles drool have to do with it then?
 
What, the ones about the boss actually being in charge, contrary to your sneering claims that he's actually rather harmless?

What's the point of his multi-billion Pound fleet of henchpersons, last word on our foreign policies and salary so huge it makes even other Europhiles drool have to do with it then?

You mean the anti-EU British newspapers twisting facts?

The president's role is largely administrative, coordinating the work of the European Council, organising and chairing its meetings, and reporting to the European Parliament after each meeting; the president will also "at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security". Some overlap between the roles of the President of the European Council, the President of the Commission, and the High Representative—notably in foreign policy—leaves uncertainty about how much influence the President of the European Council will acquire. There is further concern over whether the President will have sufficient personnel and resources to fulfil the duties of the post effectively and that, in lacking a ministry, the President might become a "play ball" between EU leaders.

From your own link pretty much..

Click on the first link on the page and you go to the explanation.
 
Then why have another Constitution? Why have more "rule sets"? Has anyone ever given a reasonable explanation? I think we all know it will be ignored anyway..

What constitution? We have a treaty (several technically) that have been amended over and over again. The last amendment happened after the Constitution idea was given up. This amendment was needed since the EU had expanded to 25 since the last treaty was amended. I would have preferred a whole new treaty tbh... and no that does not mean I was for the Constitution idea.
.
The US has a different system in that their Senators are elected to represent their constituents differently.

LOL not it does not. Only difference is that it has two chambers some thing some European countries have given up, but not all. There is nothing that prevents the US for holding a referendum.

We had a referendum in Canada.

Good for you.

You think so? What evidence is there of that?

Have you ever picked up a history book about Asia? Let me start with some more recent history...The Chinese Cultural revolution from 1966 to 1976 cost 10s of millions of lives. Cambodia's killing fields, and of course Vietnam. That was just the last 40 years. Before that we had the Chinese civil war, the Indian Partition, Japanese aggression across Asia, the Malaya conflict and so on. Then there was the Boxer uprising in China at the turn of the century. That is the last century.. add to that 4000+ years of recorded history and well..

Well if you prefer we can look at WWI , WWII. the 100 years war, the 30 years war, and so on. Was there ever a time when there wasn't conflict and death in Europe? As well as exporting it of course..

What does this have to do with Asia?

Obvious to you perhaps, but surely few rationale people would give this idea serious consideration. Maybe God simply decided to give you a break.

It is obvious to anyone with even a remote understanding of European politics since WW2.

With any research you'll find that Canada's "internal struggles" are substantially different, and far less bloodthirsty, than those in Europe.

Of course it is different. Canada is just over 100 years old, with 2 countries bordering it. Europe has 3000+ years of history with many many countries with many borders that have shifted over time. But what does not change is that each country has internal issues like Quebec, or Catalonia, or Corsica, or Scotland. Add to that issues between the countries in Europe then of course it is "different", and yet it is the same.

Of course. Europe had "The war to end all wars" and 20 years later they were at it again in WWII. This history had to change which is why the Americans and Canadians established bases there. It was far cheaper to babysit Europeans than it was to lose more of our people and treasure in more European conflicts. You simply cannot be trusted.

LOL revisionist history making. You came to Europe to defeat the Nazies. And you were all about leaving but then the cold war happened and it was seen as a good idea to have bases here. You did not "babysit" us out of the goodness of your heart, but of the fear of the Soviet Empire. We in Europe fixed our political and economic differences via agreements and treaties after WW2 and that lead to what we have today.. the EU. No Canadian or US meddling happened, at least on a major scale.. only one I can come to think of was the CIA's rigging of the Italian and Greek elections so that the communists would not gain power.

I've been there. Spent a lot of time there. It's going down the tubes. The only question remaining is how long it might take. The general consensus is two generations max.

And you can of course give examples of "going down the tubes" right? Remember we have 50 countries in Europe.

In Europe anyway. We've managed to get along quite well on this side of the Atlantic.

Easy to get along with one person when you have no choice but to agree with them. And Danish and Canadian relationships are not that good after you lot tried to steal Danish land.

And what's wrong with mentioning wars? You feel you weren't responsible for them, as well as the losses felt by others who tried to save you from yourselves?

It is an idiotic hail marry attempt to salvage a loosing debate by putting into the frame a topic that you know that you cant loose on.

Yes, I know. I've hit on a variety of subjects, as you might see. Which "Superpower" did you support? As if i didn't know!!

US of course. Was a big Reagan fan. He was the right man at the right time to stand up to the Soviets. That I dont agree with some of the US methods does not mean I dont support the idea they set forward. After all it is that idea that makes it possible for me to disagree with their methods.

Right. They sit on their finger and rotate. That's called progress where you're from.

Again an ignorant comment from someone who has zero grasp on how the EU works.

So where do you get the bulk of your news then? Who do you find to be the most reliable? The most fair and balanced?

TV: CNN, Sky News, Fox News, BBC News, France 24, Russia Today (totally biased like Fox btw), Al Jazzera, Euronews and local news reports.
Newspaper: Local danish newspapers, International Herald Tribune, other newspapers you never heard off.
Radio: Local radio, BBC World Service, VOA.

The source was "Weekly World News" and Fox owned up to the error in repeating the story.

Should never have been aired. Their biased nature meant that the story validated their views on the subject so they went with it without confirmation. And it is not the first time I might add.

Did you know they have guests on their shows with differing opinions?

Well. They have token non conservatives that usual get badgered into silence by the other guests and/or news anchors. Only time any one from the non right wing gets a word in (and only barely) is if it is a non right wing person is a big wig of some sort.
 
PeteEU

What constitution?

You said , "There are 25+ nations in Europe, all with different constitutions and rule sets".

Those are the Constitutions I was obviously referring to
We have a treaty (several technically) that have been amended over and over again.

Well there you go!!! And that's Europe in a nutshell! Not only can you not agree on anything, apart from anti Americanism, you can't even make it simple and understandable for the people it's designed, ostensibly, to serve.

The last amendment happened after the Constitution idea was given up. This amendment was needed since the EU had expanded to 25 since the last treaty was amended. I would have preferred a whole new treaty tbh... and no that does not mean I was for the Constitution idea.

Sure, Nobody knows what they want and can never agree on anything. This EU thing was simply a really bad idea. What we do know is that it wasn't one of those "power to the people" inspirations.
. LOL not it does not. Only difference is that it has two chambers some thing some European countries have given up, but not all. There is nothing that prevents the US for holding a referendum.

No, of course not, but it would be redundant. Why not, as a European, stick to things you know something about?
Have you ever picked up a history book about Asia? Let me start with some more recent history...The Chinese Cultural revolution from 1966 to 1976 cost 10s of millions of lives. Cambodia's killing fields, and of course Vietnam. That was just the last 40 years.

I've actually mentioned the Cultural Revolution many times, and of course the Left were enthralled by Chairman Mao and his Little Red Book, just as they are with Fidel Castro. But you seem to forget Communism was another insane European idea, which is exactly the point I'm making.

Before that we had the Chinese civil war, the Indian Partition, Japanese aggression across Asia, the Malaya conflict and so on. Then there was the Boxer uprising in China at the turn of the century. That is the last century.. add to that 4000+ years of recorded history and well..

Let's keep it to European history and compare, for our purposes here, the last 500 years. Asia might be close but Europe would would probably top the list.

What does this have to do with Asia?

We were questioning who has the bloodiest history, Europe or Asia. You say Asia, I say Europe.

It is obvious to anyone with even a remote understanding of European politics since WW2.

And I'm not certain you do.
Of course it is different. Canada is just over 100 years old, with 2 countries bordering it. Europe has 3000+ years of history with many many countries with many borders that have shifted over time. But what does not change is that each country has internal issues like Quebec, or Catalonia, or Corsica, or Scotland. Add to that issues between the countries in Europe then of course it is "different", and yet it is the same.

Canada is 143 years old, and it's been settled even longer, but no matter. Let's take your 100 years. Now how many wars has Canada instigated in the last 100 years and how many wars have the Europeans instigated? Canada and the United States are certainly not "the same" as Europe. The people here, including my great grandparents, fled Europe because of the wars, lack of religious freedom, the 'class' system, poverty and, as well, the stifling social habits of the Europeans.

LOL revisionist history making. You came to Europe to defeat the Nazies. And you were all about leaving but then the cold war happened and it was seen as a good idea to have bases here.

It sure did. Otherwise there would be another hot war in Europe. And let's keep in mind the number of Europeans who protested those bases and held marches regularly, wanting the
Americans out. In fact at one time the Americans were going too leave Germany, at which point the Germans begged them to stay.

You did not "babysit" us out of the goodness of your heart, but of the fear of the Soviet Empire.

Why should we fear the Soviet Union? They were on the other side of the ocean. Do you really think Russia would have attacked the United States? There was no other reason than to protect the Europeans who obviously could not, and cannot, protect themselves.
We in Europe fixed our political and economic differences via agreements and treaties after WW2 and that lead to what we have today.. the EU.

And without regard for tomorrow. This is just the latest in a string of failed fiscal and social experiments Europe has attempted.

No Canadian or US meddling happened, at least on a major scale.. only one I can come to think of was the CIA's rigging of the Italian and Greek elections so that the communists would not gain power.

And i assume you believe that to be a bad thing.
And you can of course give examples of "going down the tubes" right? Remember we have 50 countries in Europe.

It doesn't matter. Your mutual futures are assured. That's why so many thousands are leaving every years.
Easy to get along with one person when you have no choice but to agree with them. And Danish and Canadian relationships are not that good after you lot tried to steal Danish land.

Canada tried to steal Danish land? Well I hope for their sake they don't try to go to war with us. They've got their hands full with the Muslims. But they recently gave a prestigious award to a Canadian (Mark Steyn) anyway, so i assume you're exaggerating the situation again.
It is an idiotic hail marry attempt to salvage a loosing debate by putting into the frame a topic that you know that you cant loose on.

I'll win in any case, Pete.
US of course. Was a big Reagan fan. He was the right man at the right time to stand up to the Soviets. That I dont agree with some of the US methods does not mean I dont support the idea they set forward. After all it is that idea that makes it possible for me to disagree with their methods.

And yet those methods won. He was right and the Eurolefties were wrong, wrong, and wrong again. As usual.

TV: CNN, Sky News, Fox News, BBC News, France 24, Russia Today (totally biased like Fox btw), Al Jazzera, Euronews and local news reports.
Newspaper: Local danish newspapers, International Herald Tribune, other newspapers you never heard off.
Radio: Local radio, BBC World Service, VOA.

So your biggest beef with Fox is for a false story they didn't create while I can point out false stories the BBC DID create. Yet you will still give the BBC greater credibility than Fox? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Should never have been aired. Their biased nature meant that the story validated their views on the subject so they went with it without confirmation. And it is not the first time I might add.

They agree it should never have aired as the story wasn't true, or at least only partly true. But Fox weren't the only one to report this story and, again, they did not create it. The BBC, on the other hand, and as is well known, creates false stories. BBC bias is infamous, and the reason why so many Brits susceptible to propaganda still buy into it. It has helped create a generation of leftwing nitwits.
Well. They have token non conservatives that usual get badgered into silence by the other guests and/or news anchors. Only time any one from the non right wing gets a word in (and only barely) is if it is a non right wing person is a big wig of some sort.

And it is difficult for any Leftwingers to defend their position. That's why they prefer to appear on left wing media, where their BS is accepted without serious question.
 
PeteEU

You said , "There are 25+ nations in Europe, all with different constitutions and rule sets".

Those are the Constitutions I was obviously referring to

Nothing is obvious when it comes to you as you cant stick to a topic. The discussion was about the EU and the constitution so it is only natural to assume that this was what you meant.


Well there you go!!! And that's Europe in a nutshell! Not only can you not agree on anything, apart from anti Americanism, you can't even make it simple and understandable for the people it's designed, ostensibly, to serve.

And there you go again, spouting about something you dont even have the remotest insight into.

Sure, Nobody knows what they want and can never agree on anything. This EU thing was simply a really bad idea. What we do know is that it wasn't one of those "power to the people" inspirations.

You have yet to explain why having an economic union is a bad idea...

No, of course not, but it would be redundant. Why not, as a European, stick to things you know something about?

LOL it would be redundant to give the people a direct choice?

I've actually mentioned the Cultural Revolution many times, and of course the Left were enthralled by Chairman Mao and his Little Red Book, just as they are with Fidel Castro. But you seem to forget Communism was another insane European idea, which is exactly the point I'm making.

Let's keep it to European history and compare, for our purposes here, the last 500 years. Asia might be close but Europe would would probably top the list.

LOL again, you are loosing your argument and so you change the playing field. You asked where else in the world it could be worse.. I said Asia and proved it and now you want to change the playing field? No thanks.

We were questioning who has the bloodiest history, Europe or Asia. You say Asia, I say Europe.

And I am right. Asia has far more nations and people and always had so logic dictates they had more wars and more deaths. Not my fault you know nothing of Asian history. You do know that an estimated 40 million people died during the cultural revolution in China right?

Canada is 143 years old, and it's been settled even longer, but no matter. Let's take your 100 years. Now how many wars has Canada instigated in the last 100 years and how many wars have the Europeans instigated? Canada and the United States are certainly not "the same" as Europe. The people here, including my great grandparents, fled Europe because of the wars, lack of religious freedom, the 'class' system, poverty and, as well, the stifling social habits of the Europeans.

Boo hoo, 143 years versus 1500+ years of the UK, France and others.. And has Canada ever been the centre point of world politics, economics and scientific development? No.. Europe has. And again you are ignoring the obvious differences.

It sure did. Otherwise there would be another hot war in Europe. And let's keep in mind the number of Europeans who protested those bases and held marches regularly, wanting the
Americans out. In fact at one time the Americans were going too leave Germany, at which point the Germans begged them to stay.

And you base this on what? What countries in Western Europe would have gone to war with each other? France and the UK? How about Denmark and Sweden?

Why should we fear the Soviet Union? They were on the other side of the ocean. Do you really think Russia would have attacked the United States? There was no other reason than to protect the Europeans who obviously could not, and cannot, protect themselves.

LOL ya sure, live in your dream world. This is like talking to a wall.

And without regard for tomorrow. This is just the latest in a string of failed fiscal and social experiments Europe has attempted.

LOL again you have ZERO clue about what you are talking about. Give us examples then if you are so sure of your claims.

And i assume you believe that to be a bad thing.

That someone meddles in the democratic system of a country? Hell ya. Then again you are a typical American style right winger and dont care about democracy.

It doesn't matter. Your mutual futures are assured. That's why so many thousands are leaving every years.

Eh? again, prove your accusation..not that you ever do.

Canada tried to steal Danish land? Well I hope for their sake they don't try to go to war with us. They've got their hands full with the Muslims. But they recently gave a prestigious award to a Canadian (Mark Steyn) anyway, so i assume you're exaggerating the situation again.

Not my fault you dont read the news.

And yet those methods won. He was right and the Eurolefties were wrong, wrong, and wrong again. As usual.

Well that is debatable now days. Reagan put in place an economic theory that lead to the hole the US is in today. A whole the US right want to dig even bigger with the same theories that failed in the first place. He might have won the cold war, but the after war, Russia is wining hands down and many of those types are former Soviets.

So your biggest beef with Fox is for a false story they didn't create while I can point out false stories the BBC DID create. Yet you will still give the BBC greater credibility than Fox? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Again you provide no proof. But we are getting way off topic.

They agree it should never have aired as the story wasn't true, or at least only partly true. But Fox weren't the only one to report this story and, again, they did not create it. The BBC, on the other hand, and as is well known, creates false stories. BBC bias is infamous, and the reason why so many Brits susceptible to propaganda still buy into it. It has helped create a generation of leftwing nitwits.

Again, off topic and totally false accusation. It has been debunked many times. The accusations come from ignorance and political bias against the BBC.

And it is difficult for any Leftwingers to defend their position. That's why they prefer to appear on left wing media, where their BS is accepted without serious question.

HAHAHAH, yes it is difficult to defend your position when you are interrupted every second like on O'Rielly and Hanity.. But again, different topic.


On topic.. if you dont start to provide any remote proof of your accusations then I dont see the point of banging my head against the wall of ignorance coming from you.
 
Back
Top Bottom