-
Posts
-
@momentaryloss wrote:
@anc wrote:
Btw – you might want to explain the “cheese-eating, surrender monkey” statement. I’m not sure I get it or its historical roots.
If you look on another thread I posted about monkey plants, can’t be arsed to see which one it is on – the roots are under the plant which grows above the soil! :wink: :lol:
I genuinely laughed out loud at that one.
Thank you!
’tis my job! :lol:
@terry wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
Europe has always needed Europe in one way or another and there has always been a “union,” hence the reason we went to war when Germany did not withdraw from Poland. There’s lot more examples of this union. Perhaps you should read some history books.
Just a thought.
There has always been a “union”?
And this “union” declared war on Germany..?
I’m going to need popcorn for this one…
Selective editing again from you Terry. Seems all that photo shopping of pics you do, to give them a bias and make them look just how you want them to, has now spilt over into your handling of the written word as well.
It’s rather sad. I don’t like bad losers. I always think if you can’t play fair, don’t play at all.
You clearly know very little of history. If you did you would know that France and Britain agreed a pact in 1939 to defend Poland against German invasion as Germany were doing a lot of annexing of countries in their quest for “lebensraum,”
Don’t you know the two combatants were the Allies (made up of other European countries as well) against the Triple Axis? That’s a union, Terry, whichever way you look at it. Funnily enough, it led to the subsequent formation of the United Nations.
There are of course far more examples of “unions” between European countries throughout the course of history but here is not the place to go into detail. I suggest you visit your local library and read about the history of this country.
After reading all your responses to the others on here, I feel it is pointless trying to have a rational and informed debate with one such as yourself who has quite clearly, been “educated”to Daily Mail standard and not beyond. (Sorry anc!)
Oi Panda, leave those kids alone
all in all just – another brick in the wall
lol
Tel, do some reading in economics and history, forget the bleedin Daily Mail or cut&paste UKIP propaganda, set aside smart alec put downs, and come back with a more informed response. It can be done!!
Lol, Scep
* goes off to find Pink Floyd CDs
@panda12 wrote:
@anc wrote:
The EU needs ‘The City’!
I agree. I think if we do have a referendum and the arguments for and against are presented then the British electorate will vote yes.
At the end of the day being outside the EU looking in isn’t the best place to be. We are far too small an island to be self sufficient. We don’t have enough natural resources.
Faced with facts, amplified scare mongering won’t win the day.
Interesting fact: UKIP actually believe fossil fuels are a renewable source of energy. I thought that was hilarious!
Well they are.. you just need a few millenia and a lot of dead forests! :shock:
It is not a problem Panda – I do have very strong opinions about this, (not from the DM), but, have chosen to only touch the surface of them. No worries because I hate politics/politicans, and I think they should not be discussed around a dinner party’s table, whilst eating bamboo! :) It is supper time, see you later! :lol:
@minim wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
@anc wrote:
The EU needs ‘The City’!
I agree. I think if we do have a referendum and the arguments for and against are presented then the British electorate will vote yes.
At the end of the day being outside the EU looking in isn’t the best place to be. We are far too small an island to be self sufficient. We don’t have enough natural resources.
Faced with facts, amplified scare mongering won’t win the day.
Interesting fact: UKIP actually believe fossil fuels are a renewable source of energy. I thought that was hilarious!
Well they are.. you just need a few millenia and a lot of dead forests! :shock:
Lol, technically true. That’s the irony. Renewable. Yes. In our lifetime and an answer to the diminishing supply of fossil fuels here and now? No.
Just got to add, for Panda, that if anything it would be The Telegraph or the Sunday Times :)
fgs how do you delete a post that has been put in twice unintentionally?! humph :?
@jen_jen wrote:
Like Mrs T, I don’t profess to understand completely. If I read all the material currently available it’s just a pile of conflicting information and argument written from the biased view of the authors. If a respected economist not affiliated with any one side, party or cause and not funded by anyone out there just took the time to sit down and write a full unbiased appraisal it would be so welcome…unfortunately I don’t think such a person exists although I’d love to be proven wrong.
I agree Jen… that would be perfect but as you said its not likely to happen… everyone is affiliated to a party or a political ideology so its difficult to get a truly unbiased view.
Its a bit like the newspapers …. I try to read a cross section and not close my mind to anyones views… I think to do so is dangerous.
Like you jen I hope we are proved wrong, and someone with the unbiased knowledge and expertise assists me in making the right decisions on the EU.. we can live in hope :D
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!