So...brexit |
|
So...brexit |
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2016, 08:25 PM |
...but keep it objective without any personal attacks on GMC members. +1 Also we need to watch more cartoons before we continue http://watchcartoonsonline.eu/watch/south-...e8-douche-turd/ |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jun 27 2016, 12:34 AM |
And here I go again. This is a link to an article about the STATISTICS of who voted for what in the BREXIT. The demographics of the vote are now a matter of public record. For the record, the vote was split among more educated vs less educated. Not casting aspersions, not calling names, just sharing the stats of the vote here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/a...n-union/488780/ Here is the chart of the vote demography. So, just looking at the numbers, not calling anybody anything, it does seem apparent the the vote to leave was stronger among areas with less university degrees per capita. There are other correlations as well, such as age (old vs young) but they are not as tight as the education gap. It seems that folks who feel left out or put out by increased globalization, (shown in the chart by those a bit older, bit less well off, bit less education in general) voted leave in greater number, simple as that. We face much the same problem here in the states. We have millions of folks who have been displaced by globalism and technology. Folks who have not been adequately employed since 2008 if at all. And they are angry. The demography of the leave vote, is very similar to the demography of the current republican vote here. Again, not to disparage. Not calling names. Not putting down. Just making a correlation based on stats. That's it. No reason to become grumpy at all here Let's all try to discuss whatever topic in a calm and friendly manner as possible eh? Here is another bit from the Atlantic Magazine with a breakdown of statistics on likely Trump voters. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...-really/471714/ Here is the big takeaway. The Hamilton Project has found that the full-time, full-year employment rate of men without a bachelor's degree fell from 76 percent in 1990 to 68 percent in 2013 It's this one stat that has caused so much pain in the American electorate. More than many other factors IMHO. A HUGE chunk of working men, have not worked or worked/been paid adequately since well before the crash. It's caused a massive wound that has not healed, and may never. I did not think what I said was anywhere close to as personal attack as the other ( dripping with sarcasm = yes ) . Truth is not an attack, he is liberal in his views (and there is nothing wrong with that), but to call trump or brexit supporters uneducated ( and dumber than a brick wall as in other threads ) is very arrogant, not knowing anyone's background and yet still able to verbalize someone's intelligence based on preconceived ideas or arguable statistics sounds like more of an attack to me. That being said I will be careful to not get personal .
But Lets face facts :We are on opposites sides of most issues and from the poles , it is pretty much 50/50 ,so as to let someone call possibly 50 percent of your paying customers stupid an uneducated ( read his post , he called people , not their ideas = thats personal ) and you let them do that , you are putting your business at risk. I know and do not even try to attempt to try to persuade you and other die hards as I know it is futile . I am concerned much more for the ones that get bombarded with agenda driven media telling them lies ( google Clinton lies , Brian Williams , Dan rather ). I just want people to see other ideas so they can see for themselves as I believe when given the truth , People will make the right call. This is evident in the brexit vote and trump supporters finally figuring out and getting tired of your side of the argument telling them what they should think. This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 27 2016, 06:42 AM |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jun 27 2016, 01:48 AM
|
|
And here I go again. This is a link to an article about the STATISTICS of who voted for what in the BREXIT. The demographics of the vote are now a matter of public record. For the record, the vote was split among more educated vs less educated. Not casting aspersions, not calling names, just sharing the stats of the vote here. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/a...n-union/488780/ Here is the chart of the vote demography. So, just looking at the numbers, not calling anybody anything, it does seem apparent the the vote to leave was stronger among areas with less university degrees per capita. There are other correlations as well, such as age (old vs young) but they are not as tight as the education gap. It seems that folks who feel left out or put out by increased globalization, (shown in the chart by those a bit older, bit less well off, bit less education in general) voted leave in greater number, simple as that. We face much the same problem here in the states. We have millions of folks who have been displaced by globalism and technology. Folks who have not been adequately employed since 2008 if at all. And they are angry. The demography of the leave vote, is very similar to the demography of the current republican vote here. Again, not to disparage. Not calling names. Not putting down. Just making a correlation based on stats. That's it. No reason to become grumpy at all here Let's all try to discuss whatever topic in a calm and friendly manner as possible eh? Here is another bit from the Atlantic Magazine with a breakdown of statistics on likely Trump voters. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...-really/471714/ Here is the big takeaway. The Hamilton Project has found that the full-time, full-year employment rate of men without a bachelor's degree fell from 76 percent in 1990 to 68 percent in 2013 It's this one stat that has caused so much pain in the American electorate. More than many other factors IMHO. A HUGE chunk of working men, have not worked or worked/been paid adequately since the crash. It's caused a massive wound that has not healed, and may never. so what is your point, you find a graph ( being right or wrong does not matter ) and it is okay to refer half of GMC dumber than a brick wall. I never argued his stats , I was ashamed at how he attacked those with a different opinion, but we could find stats on how left leaning professors are too This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jun 27 2016, 01:50 AM |
|
||
|
|
|
Jun 27 2016, 08:43 AM |
The special relationship was established during WWI. Prior to that, no, if anything the US viewed them as adversaries. Religious freedom was not an issue in the revolution. And don't kid yourself, into the future, when it comes down to England or Europe, the US will chose Europe. This is not a world today where you "go it alone". This vote was totally stupid, they have screwed themselves. Yeah Norway can do this, go it alone, but Norway has incredible mineral wealth, natural resources. They are wealthy by default. And the Swiss are the Swiss. But England? Nobody really needs them anymore, and nobody in the world of tomorrow is going to get by without partners. I expect that Scotland and N Ireland will bolt, they will have no choice, they will have to let the English commit economic suicide all on their lonesome. I feel sorry for the English that had some sense. This was a terrible thing to happen to them, their future is now totally screwed, they should try to immigrate if possible. It is noteworthy that just like in the US with Trump supporters, the regions most supporting brexit were those with the least educated populations. Which explains the "this is so stupid I can't imagine it happening" factor. Northern Ireland won't suddenly choose to leave the UK because of this, too small to go it by themselves, and a united Ireland well that's just 100 years of troubled history to get into. -------------------- My SoundCloud
Gear Tyler Burning Water 2K Burny RLG90 with BK Emeralds Fender US Tele with BK Piledrivers Epiphone 335 with Suhr Thornbuckers PRS SE Custom 24-08 Ax8 Fessenden SD10 PSG Quilter TT15 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jun 27 2016, 04:35 PM |
This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about...
Obama Administration and UN Announce Global Police Force to Fight ‘Extremism’ In U.S. Question: And just who would be the one's to classify what is considered extreme? Progressives. Constitutionalists are already on that list. QUOTE On Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at the United Nations that her office would be working in several American cities to form what she called the Strong Cities Network (SCN), a law enforcement initiative that would encompass the globe. This amounts to nothing less than the overriding of American laws, up to and including the United States Constitution, in favor of United Nations laws that would henceforth be implemented in the United States itself – without any consultation of Congress at all. The United Nations is a sharia-compliant world body, and Obama, speaking there just days ago, insisted that “violent extremism” is not exclusive to Islam (which it is). Obama is redefining jihad terror to include everyone but the jihadists. So will the UN, driven largely by the sharia-enforcing Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the pro-Islamic post-American President Obama, use a “global police force” to crush counter-jihad forces? After all, with Obama knowingly aiding al-Qaeda forces in Syria, how likely is it that he will use his “global police force” against actual Islamic jihadists? I suspect that instead, this global police force will be used to impose the blasphemy laws under the sharia (Islamic law), and to silence all criticism of Islam for the President who proclaimed that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” What is a global police force doing in our cities? This is exactly the abdication of American sovereignty that I warned about in my book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America. The Obama Department of Justice made it clear that it was exactly that when it distributed a press release last week announcing the “Launch of Strong Cities Network to Strengthen Community Resilience Against Violent Extremism.” In that press release, the DoJ complained that “while many cities and local authorities are developing innovative responses to address this challenge, no systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale.” So if the local and municipal effort to counter the euphemistic and disingenuous “violent extremism” is inadequate and hasn’t developed “systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale,” the feds – and the UN – have to step in. Thus the groundwork is being laid for federal and international interference down to the local level. “The Strong Cities Network,” Lynch declared, “will serve as a vital tool to strengthen capacity-building and improve collaboration” – i.e., local dependence on federal and international authorities. Lynch made the global (that is, United Nations) involvement clear when she added: “As we continue to counter a range of domestic and global terror threats, this innovative platform will enable cities to learn from one another, to develop best practices and to build social cohesion and community resilience here at home and around the world.” This internationalist character was brought to the fore by the fact that the Strong Cities Network was launched on September 29 not at the White House or the Department of Homeland Security, or at the FBI headquarters or anywhere else that might be fitting for a national project, but at the United Nations. Even more ominously, the DoJ press release says that the Strong Cities Network “will strengthen strategic planning and practices to address violent extremism in all its forms by fostering collaboration among cities, municipalities and other sub-national authorities.” Sub-national and international: the press release then quotes Governing Mayor Stian Berger Røsland of Oslo, Norway, a participant in the Strong Cities Network, saying: “To counter violent extremism we need determined action at all levels of governance. To succeed, we must coordinate our efforts and cooperate across borders. The Strong Cities Network will enable cities across the globe pool our resources, knowledge and best practices together and thus leave us standing stronger in the fight against one of the greatest threats to modern society.” But what is that greatest threat, exactly? Remember, the DoJ presser says that the SCN will “address violent extremism in all its forms.” It also says that it will aid initiatives that are working toward “building social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism.” “Building social cohesion” is a euphemism for keeping peace between non-Muslim and Muslim communities – mostly by making sure that non-Muslims don’t complain too loudly about, much less work against, rapidly expanding Muslim populations and the Islamization of their communities. The DoJ presser noted that at the launch of the Strong Cities Network, “welcoming remarks” would be offered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City. The involvement of New York City’s Marxist internationalist mayor is yet another warning sign. Assert American sovereignty and individual rights. Contact your representatives now. Exhort them to oppose SCN now. Exhort them to keep America free – while it still is. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/20...tremism-in-u-s/ This post has been edited by Spock: Jun 27 2016, 04:36 PM |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jun 28 2016, 11:49 AM |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jun 28 2016, 03:24 PM
|
|
|
|
||