What Happens if No Wins again?

sink

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Just so you know, all you are expressing are opinions, mostly relying on your "internet based research", which is limited and you need to acknowledge that. I have just provided a list of reputable texts, from well established authors, and if you actually work through these texts, there is plenty to be said about the various forms of unification at the European level, from after WWII to the present, and about the related forms of globalisation.

Good luck.

What you have attempted either knowingly or unknowingly is a contemptible debate tactic know as 'information overload'. You've attempted to put a halt to the debate by bombarding your opponent with more information than he can possibly process within a reasonable time frame and then declaring his knowledge insufficient by his inability to process all the data. All in an effort to declare yourself the winner by default, when in reality 99% of the information you have provided is not pertinent to the discussion. Frankly if you're going to use those lowbrow tactics there is no value in debating you.

ei.sdraob

the poster @tlev said this

Tyranny? Are you serious? You are comparing the EU to the likes of North Korea, Old school soviet union and Zimbabwe for example. Do tears come to your eyes when you say this ideological nonsense? So if Lisbon does get pushed through are you and your fellow revolutionaries going to take to the streets to oppose this?

to which you replied with a long list of reffences and the following comment

Question how many wars have the european power centers been involved in? How many are they involved in right now? How many people including pregnant women, children and minorities are injured (as in amputees) or have died as a result. How much money do the centers of power in Europe put into military force? Is that justified? What is your position on the foreign policies within Europe and NATO?

These are the real questions. If you want to look at some real research, i.e. research that has taken decades and that has arrived at the cold, hard facts (versus the kind of "internet based research" prevalent in the forum) please see the following critiques of the political structures of the Western world, with special emphases on the USA and western Europe:

somehow you managed to equate EU with NATO

and then went on to list references of books on the subject of European states and USA + NATO adventures

so for the 3rd time

what does any of your posts and references following @tlev's post have anything to do with

* EU
* Lisbon Treaty


you sir have setup a strawman, twisted your response to somehow equate EU with NATO, then you proceeded to bombard the thread with references that are not relevant to the subject at hand (misdirection)

naughty naughty

ei.sdraob

oh lookie here what we find

you plagiarized this article (not referenced in your post)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Noam_Chomsky

by copying and pasting in this thread, then proceeded to claim it as your own "research" (in another thread nonetheless!)

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61409331&postcount=74



if you were a 3rd/4th level student writing a thesis you would have been in trouble now

.

Martin 2

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the expression "in press"... or "in production" or "accepted for publication" ... no?

Of course ei.sdraob knows what "in press"... or "in production" or "accepted for publication" means, but you’re missing the point you have provided a list of books which you tell us to read in relation to Lisbon and one of those books will not be published until 2010, ie. after the Lisbon treaty vote (assuming no Lisbon III), ei.sdraob pointed this out… you should have thanked him really.

tlev

Im still waiting for an answer to my post . I'm not making any assumptions ButcherBoiz but have you personally read all those articles/books?

ButcherBoiz

sink wrote: »

What you have attempted either knowingly or unknowingly is a contemptible debate tactic know as 'information overload'. You've attempted to put a halt to the debate by bombarding your opponent with more information than he can possibly process within a reasonable time frame and then declaring his knowledge insufficient by his inability to process all the data. All in an effort to declare yourself the winner by default, when in reality 99% of the information you have provided is not pertinent to the discussion. Frankly if you're going to use those lowbrow tactics there is no value in debating you.

No, my friend.... it is called research. You start with an extensive bibliography and arrive at a thesis. I do not expect instant answers. There is time before the vote, do some reading --that is not to say you have to read everything. But, please try to move beyond "internet based research" if you wish to present yourself as scientific, objective, knowledgeable, etc.

Some of the most active posters here, claim to be in a position to "debunk" everyone who disagrees with them. Are you unable to make suggestions, or consider that there might be a middle-ground?

I also note that you and others like you oscillate between protracted and drawn out sets of responses (when it suits) and short, dismissive responses (when that suits). By frustrating and annoying people in this way you do a disservice to whatever side of the debate you are on and of course to the overall discussion.

This is about an input on what I consider to be the basics, not to conform to your so called "standard" of research and argumentation.

People on both sides are guilty of this, and it's very sad.

This attitude of "having the last say" is I think silly. Are you guys not interested in a more fluid, genuine discussion?

Go and do some real research, since you obviously have the intelligence (not the same as wisdom) and the motivation! You don't have to admit it here, but for your own sake, get out of the fishbowl, stop doing hit-pieces on the opinions of the other side, and stop throwing babies out with the bath water.

....I am sure you will come back now using tactics so as to have the last word, but that's your problem my friend.

tlev

ButcherBoiz, please stop avoiding me. I just want your opinion, you believe that the EU is worse than the regimes I mentioned? And did you read those articles and books you cited, if so how many?

Happy Monday

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

or you could do the same and keep it on topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIARJj9WajQ

(couldnt resist one last plug)

Buddy - grow up - comparing Declan Ganley to Hitler.
Perhaps you and your fellow political geeks and nerds on this forum should come out of your dusty attics and get some lives!

ei.sdraob

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

No, my friend.... it is called research. You start with an extensive bibliography and arrive at a thesis. I do not expect instant answers. There is time before the vote, do some reading --that is not to say you have to read everything. But, please try to move beyond "internet based research" if you wish to present yourself as scientific, objective, knowledgeable, etc.

Some of the most active posters here, claim to be in a position to "debunk" everyone who disagrees with them. Are you unable to make suggestions, or consider that there might be a middle-ground?

I also note that you and others like you oscillate between protracted and drawn out sets of responses (when it suits) and short, dismissive responses (when that suits). By frustrating and annoying people in this way you do a disservice to whatever side of the debate you are on and of course to the overall discussion.

I am here to provide an input on what I consider to be the basics, not to conform to your so called "standard" of research and argumentation.

People on both sides are guilty of this, and it's very sad.

This attitude of "having the last say" is I think silly. Are you guys not interested in a more fluid, genuine discussion?

Go and do some real research, since you obviously have the intelligence (not the same as wisdom) and the motivation! You don't have to admit it here, but for your own sake, get out of the fishbowl, stop doing hit-pieces on the opinions of the other side, and stop throwing babies out with the bath water.

....I am sure you will come back now using tactics so as to have the last word, but that's your problem my friend.

Your references are almost all the works of one author who mostly writes on the subject of american politics and foreign policy (which is all fine considering he is described as "prolific critic of American politics and foreign policy" [1])

here you have committed another mistake

research does not mean "read all the works of one guy"

btw Yes i have read works by Chomski, hes a regular writer for the Guardian [1]

So as other posters above me mentioned already, what does it have to do with the post you replied to or the thread itself titled "What Happens if No Wins again?" ?

do you want to tell us that passing the Lisbon Treaty would mean :

* Ireland would loose neutrality and end up in NATO?
* That EU would form an army??
* that our men would be conscripted into a European army [2]???


fearmongering anyone?



[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/noamchomsky
[2] http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0103/1230842388641.html

ButcherBoiz

ei.sdraob wrote: »

oh lookie here what we find

you plagiarized this article (not referenced in your post)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Noam_Chomsky

by copying and pasting in this thread, then proceeded to claim it as your own "research" (in another thread nonetheless!)

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61409331&postcount=74



if you were a 3rd/4th level student writing a thesis you would have been in trouble now

.

Again, my friend, you (and the others) are not attending to the information. You are obsessed with tactics... this is not cowboys and indians.

Neither did I claim to present research in the form of recommended reading.

ei.sdraob

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Again, my friend, you (and the others) are not attending to the information. You are obsessed with tactics... this is not cowboys and indians.

Neither did I claim to present research in the form of recommended reading.

for the 5th time (i am not sure how many times can i ask before moderators would get pissed of at both of us)

what does the information you presented have to do with the post you replied to?

arghghghg

sorry everyone for repeating myself but its like beating head against wall

tlev

ei.sdraob wrote: »

for the 5th time (i am not sure how many times can i ask before moderators would get pissed of at both of us)

what does the information you presented have to do with the post you replied to?

arghghghg

sorry everyone for repeating myself but its like beating head against wall

I feel the same , still no response.

P. Breathnach

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

... Some of the most active posters here, claim to be in a position to "debunk" everyone who disagrees with them. Are you unable to make suggestions, or consider that there might be a middle-ground?

Debunking inaccurate claims or showing weaknesses in argument is a useful contribution to debate.

I also note that you and others like you oscillate between protracted and drawn out sets of responses (when it suits) and short, dismissive responses (when that suits).

Are you suggesting a minimum and maximum wordcount per contribution? A kind of "never mind the quality, feel the width" approach?

By frustrating and annoying people in this way you do a disservice to whatever side of the debate you are on and of course to the overall discussion.

This is about an input on what I consider to be the basics, not to conform to your so called "standard" of research and argumentation.

People on both sides are guilty of this, and it's very sad.

Leave moderating to the moderators.

This attitude of "having the last say" is I think silly. Are you guys not interested in a more fluid, genuine discussion?

Of course we are. Except those of us who do not agree with me.

Go and do some real research, since you obviously have the intelligence (not the same as wisdom) and the motivation! You don't have to admit it here, but for your own sake, get out of the fishbowl, stop doing hit-pieces on the opinions of the other side, and stop throwing babies out with the bath water.

You mean pissing on people's opinions, rather like you are doing here?

....I am sure you will come back now using tactics so as to have the last word, but that's your problem my friend.

It pleases me greatly that it seems to be your problem.

ButcherBoiz

ei.sdraob wrote: »

for the 5th time (i am not sure how many times can i ask before moderators would get pissed of at both of us)

what does the information you presented have to do with the post you replied to?

arghghghg

sorry everyone for repeating myself but its like beating head against wall

If this is getting drawn out and disrupting the thread, well it takes two to tango. You are effectively ignoring my various comments and claiming not to see any relevance. You are trying to force me to repeat myself ad nauseam. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve? If you really feel (as you claim) my points are irrelevant, then why are you responding, over and over (you guys did it!)? Anyone who wants to can review the various posts (or any individual posters history of posts) and see what was said.

ei.sdraob

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

If this is getting drawn out and disrupting the thread, well it takes two to tango. You are effectively ignoring my various comments and claiming not to see any relevance. You are trying to force me to repeat myself ad nauseam. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve? If you really feel (as you claim) my points are irrelevant, then why are you responding, over and over (you guys did it!)? Anyone who wants to can review the various posts (or any individual posters history of posts) and see what was said.

ok not to drag this out and since you decided to spill this "debate" into a parallel thread

can you PM me the exact URLs to the posts with your answers

ButcherBoiz

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ok not to drag this out and since you decided to spill this "debate" into a parallel thread

can you PM me the exact URLs to the posts with your answers

My friend, we are "in dispute", for the time being. I see no reason to send you PM's... sorry.

ei.sdraob

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

My friend, we are "in dispute", for the time being. I see no reason to send you PM's... sorry.

i managed to boil down this "dispute" into a simple logic equation in the parallel thread you decided to spill over into [1]

---

[1] http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61410335&postcount=89

ButcherBoiz

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i managed to boil down this "dispute" into a simple logic equation in the parallel thread you decided to spill over into [1]

---

[1] http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61410335&postcount=89

This is my final point. I find that several people are responding protractedly and repeatedly to my points, which they claim are irrelevant, or in the latest responses, non-sensical. If this is your collective position, then why are you laboring so much? If you see zero merit or relevance in a post, why are you going to these extremes?

tlev

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

This is my final point. I find that several people are responding protractedly and repeatedly to my points, which they claim are irrelevant, or in the latest responses, non-sensical. If this is your collective position, then why are you laboring so much? If you see zero merit or relevance in a post, why are you going to these extremes?

You talk about European power centers not equating the EU, but then what do they have to do with the EU being tyrannical?

(Sorry if this is in the wrong thread, this debate going on over two threads, I can't remember which one it started in).

ButcherBoiz

tlev wrote: »

You talk about European power centers not equating the EU, but then what do they have to do with the EU being tyrannical?

(Sorry if this is in the wrong thread, this debate going on over two threads, I can't remember which one it started in).

Again, and finally, I did not say "the EU is tyrannical".

tlev

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Again, and finally, I did not say "the EU is tyrannical".

So what are you saying then? What is YOUR opinion, not Noam Chomsky's.

ButcherBoiz

tlev wrote: »

So what are you saying then? What is YOUR opinion, not Noam Chomsky's.

This is unfair, again. I have expressed my opinions, and I not presume to equate my opinions with those of Chomsky. Chomsky's opinions are well established and you can refer to them, or debate them, yourself, if you wish.

FutureTaoiseach

ei.sdraob wrote:

dutch and french did not vote on the Lisbon Treaty but on European Constitution

They are 95% the same and if the French and Dutch govts were so sure the concerns of their respective peoples had been adequately addressed, they would have put Lisbon to referenda but they didn't. If Lisbon and the EU Constitution were not essentially the same thing, then why are so many of the elites saying they are:

Nicolas Sarkozy,14 November 2007 wrote:

A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.

Valery Giscard d'Estaing,30 October 2007 wrote:

The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content … The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through the old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary … But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former Danish PM,25 June 2007 wrote:

The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters - the core - is left.

Bertie Ahern,24 June 2007 wrote:

They haven't changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there.

Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister,speech at London School of Econmics, 21 February 2007 wrote:

They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister - imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go to the Commons and say ‘Look, you see, it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.’ Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.

Garrett Fitzgerald,former Taoiseach, Irish Times, 30 June 2007 wrote:

The most striklng change ( between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibilty has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.

Angela Merkel, German Chancellor,speech in the European Parliament, 27 June 2007 wrote:

The substance of the constitution is preserved.That is a fact.

Dermot Ahern, former Foreign Affairs Minister,Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007 wrote:

The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term ‘constitution’

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

They are 95% the same and if the French and Dutch govts were so sure the concerns of their respective peoples had been adequately addressed, they would have put Lisbon to referenda but they didn't. If Lisbon and the EU Constitution were not essentially the same thing, then why are so many of the elites saying they are:

Garrett Fitzgerald wrote:

The most striklng change ( between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibilty has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.

I prefer that interpretation though the context would be telling.

Is it 90 or 95% though?

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

I prefer that interpretation though the context would be telling.

Is it 90 or 95% though?

The context is in the Irish Times, 30 June 2007.

K-9

OK, on the Constitutional point, it still is open to challenge as seen by Germany.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The context is in the Irish Times, 30 June 2007.

What are the changes? Do you actually know?

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

OK, on the Constitutional point, it still is open to challenge as seen by Germany.

It is open to challenge in Germany. Not in Ireland. Read the Irish Constitution, notably Article 29.4.10 and the proposed Article 29.4.6 e.g. "Nothing in this Constitution" etc.

Scofflaw wrote:

What are the changes? Do you actually know?

Can so many people be wrong, Scofflaw? The changes are largely symbolic, including changing the name of the proposed EU Foreign Minister to the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, removing the official status of the EU flag and anthem (Article I-8 of the EU Constitution removed). In terms of European integration, there are hardly differences between the 2 documents. For example, with respect to QMV, the number of competences moved from unanimity to QMV is the same in both documents - 68. Both documents increased by 106 the number of new EU competences. Lisbon and the EU Constitution both have the same number of passerelle-clauses i.e. 8.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It is open to challenge in Germany. Not in Ireland. Read the Irish Constitution, notably Article 29.4.10 and the proposed Article 29.4.6 e.g. "Nothing in this Constitution" etc.

What? Are you seriously claiming that EU Treaties are protected by 29.4.10?

amazed (again!),
Scofflaw

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It is open to challenge in Germany. Not in Ireland. Read the Irish Constitution, notably Article 29.4.10 and the proposed Article 29.4.6 e.g. "Nothing in this Constitution" etc.

OK, Wait a sec. You can take a legal challenge NOW, to see if that is unconstitutional.