Swedes usually see things from a different point of view, maybe because we haven't been at war for 300 years.
states either need to have full rights and self sufficiency with the central government only in place to maintain a military or we need a strong central government with all states following the same rules. personally i prefer a strong central government.. im tired of states having separate taxes, rules for employment, health care, drugs, criminal laws, businesses, ect ect. the current two party system allows dems and republicans to play the donor game and then blame each other when shit doesn't go right and of course most of the populace is sheep so they vote for whatever is hot atm.
my two cents..
my two cents..
I pointed out that civil wars only occur within a country, not members of a union.
It was also you that said since the EU europe has been peaceful, not me. So yes, it was you that created that metric and not me.
You're suggesting that right wing influences will cause war. We've had wars since the beginning of recorded time so it would stand to reason that if right wing policies caused wars you'd be able to site some instances as history has a tendency to repeat itself.
No more than any other nation. Have they been active since the end of the second world war? Sure, but after WW 2 they were also blamed for being too passive in the past and encouraged to take on a more active role. You going to pretend EU members (among others) didn't join them in those more recent wars?
1
1031
Guest
I would think that competition among the 50 states encourages state governments to be more honest or at least provide citizens with incentives to live in their particular state. One central government is in competition with other countries to provide the best place to live and people are less likely to move from country to country than within a country.
another 2 cents.
You are wrong.
I used Europe as an example, a little simplified, but I'm sure most people got the implication that I meant western Europe. To which you attacked me on that and tried to pin me on stuff. I answered you on that tongue-in-cheek, which was pretty clear as well, did the same a second time, and only then took on your push of involving the EU outright. I even wrote it so clearly that I picked up your point, I have no idea what your problem in understanding or following this is.
Now you are spinning it to me saying something about since the inception of the EU, when clearly the only time I involved a time-frame at all, I said since WW2. Again, it was you starting with the creation of the EU.
Its just ridiculous, dude. You created something to now attack me on, all because I used "Europe" too freely for your liking and I joked on you being such a tight-ass in this occasion. And you were so tight-ass to not even notice and create something entirely new on it.
Go get laid.
I detest the idea of a world government as it's undemocratic. Brexit is the inevitable outcome. Strong states or states that simply think they can handle their own affairs better than bureaucrats making laws for them miles away will always want independence. Wars will never go away, they serve several purposes. One, war is the ultimate sacrifice and as long as people are unhappy, some of them are going to be willing to die to get the change they want. If you aren't willing to die but they are, you're going to be fighting for your life whether you want to or not. Also, wars are profitable. Banks make money, the military industrial complex makes money. Plus if your country has a big welfare state and can't afford to sustain it, why not send the poor to war and thin out the herd a little?
You said Europe. Then Russia was pointed out to you. Then you said EU (or western Europe as you're now stating) which as I earlier pointed out to you is still incorrect seeing members of the EU and their involvement in pretty much every conflict since the second world war.You are wrong.
I used Europe as an example, a little simplified, but I'm sure most people got the implication that I meant western Europe. To which you attacked me on that and tried to pin me on stuff. I answered you on that tongue-in-cheek, which was pretty clear as well, did the same a second time, and only then took on your push of involving the EU outright. I even wrote it so clearly that I picked up your point, I have no idea what your problem in understanding or following this is.
Now you are spinning it to me saying something about since the inception of the EU, when clearly the only time I involved a time-frame at all, I said since WW2. Again, it was you starting with the creation of the EU.
Its just ridiculous, dude. You created something to now attack me on, all because I used "Europe" too freely for your liking and I joked on you being such a tight-ass in this occasion. And you were so tight-ass to not even notice and create something entirely new on it.
Go get laid.
Again you're going back to the "you seem angry" thing. Which as @Splinty pointed out earlier in this thread seems to be a new tactic for people when things backfire on them.
You are wasting your time. He digs his heels in on any topic and when his errors are pointed out, he simply twists your words and creates new strawmen to argue against them. I've never seen more goal post moving in the history of the Internet and he's all over the map.You are wrong.
I used Europe as an example, a little simplified, but I'm sure most people got the implication that I meant western Europe. To which you attacked me on that and tried to pin me on stuff. I answered you on that tongue-in-cheek, which was pretty clear as well, did the same a second time, and only then took on your push of involving the EU outright. I even wrote it so clearly that I picked up your point, I have no idea what your problem in understanding or following this is.
Now you are spinning it to me saying something about since the inception of the EU, when clearly the only time I involved a time-frame at all, I said since WW2. Again, it was you starting with the creation of the EU.
Its just ridiculous, dude. You created something to now attack me on, all because I used "Europe" too freely for your liking and I joked on you being such a tight-ass in this occasion. And you were so tight-ass to not even notice and create something entirely new on it.
Go get laid.
He's a self described gun guy that tries to argue for the Green Party, which supports the U.N firearms protocol. If you stay on him relentlessly and point out his contradictions, he will eventually get hurt feelings and rage quit the conversation. On top of that, he makes countless baseless claims that can be countered with a five second Google search. He has no interest in advancing or seeing the other side of a discussion.
New tactic? Have you been away from the internet for the last year?
Have you not seen all the You Mad memes that have been plastered all over every political discussion board?
Nah, you must be the biggest dunt. Dah. I dioxide emissions and the Price of course the same time.
Have another drink Galt, I'm sure we will understand you better then.
No and no.
I am a proper anarchist. Real left wing.
The equality has been mostly fought and one. You bitch boy go forrest. Empty trees.
The equality has been mostly fought and one. You bitch boy go forrest. Empty trees.
Busy messing around with black folk and navy fags enjoy your forum.
Shit man didn't see you for all the cunts in the woods. Bless you.
It's right up there with the use of terms like snowflake and safe space among certain populations on the internet.
Snow flake and safe space I'm familiar with, but I don't frequent politic specific forums so I'm not familiar with what their meme du jour is.
It's right up there with the use of terms like snowflake and safe space among certain populations on the internet.
Tongue-in-cheek. At this point I have to ask, can't you read or can't you comprehend?
No bearing on the argument of a world-government creating internal wars. Which I also wrote already. At this point I have to ask, can't you read or can't you comprehend?
To transfer the example: it's like saying a world government would be involved in more wars against aliens as a planet without one would be. Hmkay. Maybe? No clue.
Nothing backfired on me though, you can clearly follow everything that happened, if you relax for a bit. Its fine, we can just forget it if you want. I'll just think you had a bad couple of days and I still respect ya ass. Okay?Again you're going back to the "you seem angry" thing. Which as@Splinty pointed out earlier in this thread seems to be a new tactic for people when things backfire on them.
To be honest, after reading this last post of your, I think you have have just misunderstood what my original statement was.
Of course it's okay. We're just a bunch of talking monkeys arguing on our computers. I have my share of disagreements with
@MC Gusto too. Doesn't mean I won't buy him a beer if he's ever in the neighborhood though, seems like a good dude to me.
I find it hilarious that American so called liberals think a Swedish anarchist is a right winger.
Nobody was talking about you.
Anarchism has strains in left wing thought and right wing thought. From your positions it's pretty clear you tout a right wing version of anarchy.
What side of history do you want to be on?