VE DAY

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-18 1:06 PM

John52 - 2017-05-18 5:17 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-17 2:05 PM

John52 - 2017-05-17 1:53 PM

RogerC - 2017-05-17 1:13 PM

John52 - 2017-05-17 9:23 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-16 9:01 PM you might turn your bile towards Germany which has year upon year failed to uphold it's obligations with regard to defence spending......I recall mentioning this before........to the betterment of it's financial standing.

What are Germany's 'obligations with regard to (military) spending?'  

...... and admiring their infrastructure like roads etc, prosperity.

Illegal wars?  Agreement point one then.  Yes I agree and it would be sweet justice to see B'liar in the dock.

You asked the question regarding Germany's obligations, received an answer although it didn't actually show what Germany is 'obliged' to spend under the terms of the NATO agreement.  That figure is 2% of GDP nation by nation.  Germany has consistently underfunded since 1991.  As for 2016 the figure was 0.8% underfunded (for that year only not accumulated) of GDP which translates to approximately $24 BILLION for 2016 alone. 

Now consider that and relate it to that additional $24 billion going into the German economy while it sponges off other fully contributing nations year on year and it is clear to anyone that it is no wonder Germany is so prosperous.  It has a budget surplus, as of 2016, of $23.7 billion which strangely enough is almost what it 'owes' NATO for 2016.

So yes the German people are in the main very nice....I was once bought a beer by a poor chap (half of his jaw was missing) who was bombed by the RAF during WWII as a thank you for it's part in defeating Hitler.  I was in the RAF at the time hence the relevance but it goes to illustrate the character of some in Germany so on that we agree.

German infrastructure is good....road and rail so we agree once more.  However it is my contention that a great deal of German prosperity (Governmentally not industrially or individually) is founded on it's to underpaying NATO giving it ever more money to spend on it's infrastructure and social plans.

So you asked what are Germany's obligations......there is your answer, clear, illustrative, a couple of agreements, no ad hominem and no GIF's.

A reply acknowledging that you have your answer, without diversion or other tenuous links to quite irrelevant elements would be nice.

So it might make the Germans think about it if we reduced our military spending their level?We have the advantage of being surrounded by sea. A barrier which stopped Hitlers army even after they had routed the combined British and French armies in 6 weeks.

Clearly the Channel was a barrier however without materiel,  and resources allied to sufficient control of the skies he had no option but to call off Operation Sea Lion:

This was for a number of good reasons:

Germany had no military invasion fleet, being forced to use wooden river barges, which were collected in rivers of northern France, where they were bombed repeatedly by the RAF.

For the seaborne invasion to have crossed the English Channel, Germany needed to sink the Royal Navy, a feat it never looked liked being able to accomplish.

To have crossed the Channel and maintained logistics, Germany also needed to defeat the RAF, so after Germany had lost the Battle of Britain by 11 October, 1940, such an invasion was doomed to failure.

However one needs to look at the bigger picture.  It is not just 'us' we need to consider NATO as a whole, what it has provided and continues to provide.  Just because one of the 'supposedly larger contributory' nations reneges on it's responsibilities surely that is not sufficient reason for 'us' to stoop to their level and in doing so most likely bring an end to the alliance as we know it? 

Would it bring NATO to an end if we stopped closing homeless shelters to increase our military spending? Last figures I saw Britain had the highest military spending in Europe, but since it was measured in US dollars before the pound crashed after the Brexit vote, Britain might have fallen below first place. But we are still a long way above the European average in military spending, despite being surrounded by water which is an advantage they don't have.

Oh that's what we are doing is it either spending on defence or homeless people!   I didn't realise the two were as interdependent as that.

However looking at it from your perspective John the homeless should be pretty well off then because defence spending as a % of GDP has fallen year on year since the peak of 2011.  So I don't understand your logic in blaming increased spending on defence for the plight of the homeless when defence spending has, and continues to do so, fallen year on year since 2011.

Please explain your claim.

The links I posted earlier show reduced direct spending on the homeless (although the cost of increased homelesness is inevitably passed on to the NHS, Police, Courts etc which is ignored)Wheras last time I heard Theresa May she was promising to increase military spending.I realise military spending has fallen as a percentage of GDP, but I stopped taking their GDP figures seriously when I realised they count House Price Inflation as 'Growth' *-) - which they insert into every statistic they can, ignoring the ones that matter like Current Account Deficit and Debt .

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-18 1:25 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-05-18 11:27 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-16 3:13 PM.....................How can you or anyone take him seriously (John that is) when he constantly litters his responses with (irrelevant to the topic)his seemingly obsessive hatred of the Monarchy, elements of Government and the Armed Forces etc etc...............

Because those are his views. So, one should either accept them as such and not respond, or argue with the view. Calling someone an idiot for holding just starts a pub brawl, it doesn't settle any of the issues, or resolve any of the differences. Bit pointless, somehow.

Interesting defence of John there.  I agree those are his views however it doesn't give him, or anyone else the right to 'almost continually' bang on the same drum of hatred, almost inevitably irrelevant to the topic, in most every thread or topic they post on.  It is almost as if he is actively behaving as an internet troll:

"Someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

Now that, to me, clearly describes what John regularly posts apparently in his determination to insert criticism/dislike/hatred of his pet subjects.  So whilst an attitude of 'because those are his views' is laudable it really doesn't help.  Maybe if more people took issue with his constant hijacking..........or (I should take my own advice here...goodness knows I've tried)ignore him in the hope he goes away although I doubt that very much.

PS.  I have to admit to his last few posts being somewhat lacking in the 'bile/hatred/tenuous' department so I trust it will continue.

 

 

I suggest you look at the language used in some of your own posts and personal attacks on me.I hope the moderators will leave them where they are, because the only person you are showing up with language like that is yourself. But that is a matter for them.I wouldn't set myself up as a moderator any more than I would set myself up as a Traffic Warden and try to tell people where they can't park. More than enough Traffic Wardens doing that already I believe in leaving the moderating to the moderators. :-D

[RogerC]

There is a major difference between the language one uses and the content one chooses to post in order to hijack or divert the intent of the thread.  I suggest you look again at your posts and this underlined in particular: 

Definition of an internet troll:

Someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog,

It is unfortunate that my reply to Brian came as it did because it was getting to the point where the discourse was getting on topic (compared to the usual diversions) and interesting without the need to address tangential additions.  Regrettably it looks as though we are off again on a diversion because the thread was veering nicely back on track.....sort of anyway.

 

 

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-18 3:38 PM

 

>extraneous, or off-topic messages

 

You remembered Her Majesty's Armed forces who won our freedoms

I remembered the Chartists and Suffragettes who won our freedoms

(whilst under attack from Her Majesty's Armed Forces)

and then you posted this;

https://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxMy0wNzY2NzAyNDRhMWQzOWJh.png

Why do you think your heros are worth so much more than mine?

[DavidGJ]

John52 - 2017-05-18 5:05 PM

 

RogerC - 2017-05-18 3:38 PM

 

>extraneous, or off-topic messages

 

You remembered Her Majesty's Armed forces who won our freedoms

I remembered the Chartists and Suffragettes who won our freedoms

(whilst under attack from Her Majesty's Armed Forces)

and then you posted this;

https://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxMy0wNzY2NzAyNDRhMWQzOWJh.png

Why do you think your heros are worth so much more than mine?

 

I don't normally enter debates such as this and post little despite being a member of another motorhome forum where I find the fee worth paying for the knowledge gained. However I've viewed your posts for some time in the way that some people can't resist stopping to see a car crash.

 

I have always found your opinions repellent and odious and they are exemplified in the post above and are so childlike and yet at the same time, so hateful that I'm finally moved to comment.

 

How anyone can compare the Suffragettes and Chartists with the sacrifice of our armed forces is beyond me but first of all let's examine their respective effects on our freedoms.

 

Do you really believe that if the Suffragettes hadn't emerged that women would still not have the vote? Do you really believe that if the Chartists hadn't emerged we'd still be near-serfs? Your insistence that these groups won our freedoms is nonsense. At best they sped them up a tiny bit, but the history of Western nations is one of gradual liberalisation and greater freedoms. And those responsible for this liberalisation are from all social classes as decency and fairness is not the reserve of just the working classes.

 

Republicans have been some of the most illiberal, cruel and vindictive people on earth. How many men women and children did your republican brethren murder in the last decade of the 18th Century? Thousands were killed by the mobs and by the state, and their crime? Being born into the wrong French families.

 

Now I think that equating present-day Republicans with those in the French Revolution is utter nonsense. But it's what you do continually, such as when you mention how her Majesty's troops suppressed the Chartists. It was hundreds of years ago man, get over it for God's sake! It was a different time, with different morals and standards.

 

But as for comparing heroes what did the Suffragettes risk? A fine or a few days in prison. What did the Chartists risk? At worst deportation to the colonies. The only time Chartists lost their lives was when they departed from peaceful protest and engaged in thug-like behaviour. And they were treated according to the morals of the day, just like the Republicans of France treated innocent men, women and children, by the standards of the time.

 

Your heroes risked little. RogerC's heroes risked all and many lost their lives. Whereas your heroes actually changed little, RogerC's heroes really did secure our freedoms. Without the brave young pilots who lost their lives in the Battle of Britain we might now be a vassal state of the greater German Reich or even worse, under the communist yoke. Another ludicrous viewpoint of yours is that we should have let Hitler and Germany fight it out. What do you think the victor would have done? We would have been next on their list and as the ruler of most of Europe they'd have rolled over us in no time.

 

Anyone who can equate the real sacrifice of our armed forces to the Chartists and Suffragettes is beyond deluded and like others I genuinely think that you have a mental health problem.

 

You swim in a cesspit of hatred and loathing for your country, its institutions and its values and whilst a lot of your bile seems designed simply to enrage and annoy decent people I have no doubt that your hatred of the UK is genuine as it oozes from every pore.

 

If I had to fight in a war please God that I have a man like RogerC watching my back than a person who believes that nothing is worth fighting and dying for.

 

This will be my only post to you. I find your views repulsive, twisted and warped and it takes a lot to persuade me to enter a debate such as this but someone needs to point out the vacuity and utter silliness of many of your statements.

 

 

[John52]

DavidGJ - 2017-05-18 8:42 PM

 

I don't normally enter debates such as this and post little despite being a member of another motorhome forum where I find the fee worth paying for the knowledge gained.

 

Well thats got me stumped for a start. The knowlege here is given freely by members. I loooked on one of those forums. Someone was asking for knowlege of a technical problem with their motorhome which I knew the answer. But I would have had to pay to join so I could help them. So I didn't bother, and they didn't get the help they needed. How many more are there lke that?

Of course the most reliable source of knowlege is from a workshop manual. I posted a link to a free download of that on here too :-D

[John52]

DavidGJ - 2017-05-18 8:42 PM

 

 

Do you really believe that if the Suffragettes hadn't emerged that women would still not have the vote? Do you really believe that if the Chartists hadn't emerged we'd still be near-serfs? Your insistence that these groups won our freedoms is nonsense. At best they sped them up a tiny bit, but the history of Western nations is one of gradual liberalisation and greater freedoms. And those responsible for this liberalisation are from all social classes as decency and fairness is not the reserve of just the working classes.

 

 

Who knows? Like if we hadn't declared war on Germany, or we had been allowed to know about the peace offer from Rudolf Hess, what would have happened? Our 2 worst enemies Hitler and Stalin annihilated each other, without our getting involved perhaps.

If we hadn't had the Chartists and Suffragettes someone else might have won our freedoms, and been murdered by Her Majesty's Armed Forces whilst peacefully demonstrating - look up Peterloo Massacre.

Or we might still be like the many other repressed people in the world.

Armed Forces are sworn to defend the Unelected Monarch, and obey orders, good or bad. Armed forces alone don't guarantee the freedom of the people. There are still many countries where the Government uses its armed forces to repress its people.

[John52]

DavidGJ - 2017-05-18 8:42 PM

........ah hominem and waffle removed ...........

 

Republicans have been some of the most illiberal, cruel and vindictive people on earth.

 

 

and what of the Royalists?

What did Shakespeare think of our King who tortured and raped and pitted infants on spikes, and is now buried in State in Westminster Abbey?

[Bop]

Does this forum not have a Moderator Team who can supervise and lock threads such as this one.

 

This whole debate has become somewhat of a worthless and pointless exercise and I'm really surprised that it has been allowed to continue for so long.

 

John - You are entitled to your views but my last comment to you is that I hope with all sincerity that GCHQ is monitoring your IP address.

 

Cheers,

 

Andrew

 

 

[John52]

Bop - 2017-05-19 9:08 AM

 

Does this forum not have a Moderator Team who can supervise and lock threads such as this one.

Perhaps they believe in freedom of speech?

Bop - 2017-05-19 9:08 AM

This whole debate has become somewhat of a worthless and pointless exercise and I'm really surprised that it has been allowed to continue for so long.

 

John - You are entitled to your views but my last comment to you is that I hope with all sincerity that GCHQ is monitoring your IP address.

 

Cheers,

 

Andrew

 

 

Unlike you, obviously.

Were the questions too awkward for you?

[thebishbus]

If my memory serves me correctly, John 52 ,under a different name was banned from the forum once because of his objectionable postings

Brian B.

[thebishbus]

If my memory serves me correctly, John 52 ,under a different name was banned from the forum once because of his objectionable postings

Brian B.

[Guest pelmetman]

Bop - 2017-05-19 9:08 AM

 

Does this forum not have a Moderator Team who can supervise and lock threads such as this one.

 

This whole debate has become somewhat of a worthless and pointless exercise and I'm really surprised that it has been allowed to continue for so long.

 

John - You are entitled to your views but my last comment to you is that I hope with all sincerity that GCHQ is monitoring your IP address.

 

Cheers,

 

Andrew

 

 

I dunno ;-) ......

 

It's quite a useful reminder whilst Labour should never be allowed into power whilst the Loony left are in charge :D ........

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-05-19 2:10 PM

 

Bop - 2017-05-19 9:08 AM

 

Does this forum not have a Moderator Team who can supervise and lock threads such as this one.

 

This whole debate has become somewhat of a worthless and pointless exercise and I'm really surprised that it has been allowed to continue for so long.

 

John - You are entitled to your views but my last comment to you is that I hope with all sincerity that GCHQ is monitoring your IP address.

 

Cheers,

 

Andrew

 

 

I dunno ;-) ......

 

It's quite a useful reminder whilst Labour should never be allowed into power whilst the Loony left are in charge :D ........

 

 

or why Theresa May chickens out of a live TV debate with Jeremy Corbyn because he might ask the sort of questions she doesn't want to answer :-S

[antony1969]

John52 - 2017-05-19 4:13 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-19 2:10 PM

 

Bop - 2017-05-19 9:08 AM

 

Does this forum not have a Moderator Team who can supervise and lock threads such as this one.

 

This whole debate has become somewhat of a worthless and pointless exercise and I'm really surprised that it has been allowed to continue for so long.

 

John - You are entitled to your views but my last comment to you is that I hope with all sincerity that GCHQ is monitoring your IP address.

 

Cheers,

 

Andrew

 

 

I dunno ;-) ......

 

It's quite a useful reminder whilst Labour should never be allowed into power whilst the Loony left are in charge :D ........

 

 

or why Theresa May chickens out of a live TV debate with Jeremy Corbyn because he might ask the sort of questions she doesn't want to answer :-S

 

Don't you ever listen to PMs Questions ... The man is destroyed most weeks by HM Mrs May ... He offers nothing and she gains nothing by having any other debate than that with him ... Its called not having to because your opponent is weak and useless and stands no chance of winning ... I presume this is your get out clause for losing the election that HM Mrs May didn't dare face him on TV or maybe its like Bullets excuse that HM Mrs May shows her really sexy legs to win elections ... Corbyns challenge other than from his own party MPs should be aimed at Tim Faggot ... Your both chasing 2nd place and its those 2 losers who should be debating on TV

[Guest pelmetman]

antony1969 - 2017-05-19 4:48 PM

 

John52 - 2017-05-19 4:13 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-19 2:10 PM

 

Bop - 2017-05-19 9:08 AM

 

Does this forum not have a Moderator Team who can supervise and lock threads such as this one.

 

This whole debate has become somewhat of a worthless and pointless exercise and I'm really surprised that it has been allowed to continue for so long.

 

John - You are entitled to your views but my last comment to you is that I hope with all sincerity that GCHQ is monitoring your IP address.

 

Cheers,

 

Andrew

 

 

I dunno ;-) ......

 

It's quite a useful reminder whilst Labour should never be allowed into power whilst the Loony left are in charge :D ........

 

 

or why Theresa May chickens out of a live TV debate with Jeremy Corbyn because he might ask the sort of questions she doesn't want to answer :-S

 

Don't you ever listen to PMs Questions ... The man is destroyed most weeks by HM Mrs May ... He offers nothing and she gains nothing by having any other debate than that with him ... Its called not having to because your opponent is weak and useless and stands no chance of winning ... I presume this is your get out clause for losing the election that HM Mrs May didn't dare face him on TV or maybe its like Bullets excuse that HM Mrs May shows her really sexy legs to win elections ... Corbyns challenge other than from his own party MPs should be aimed at Tim Faggot ... Your both chasing 2nd place and its those 2 losers who should be debating on TV

 

All the lack of debate proves to me is The Sainted Theresa is kind to dumb animals :D .......

 

 

[John52]

antony1969 - 2017-05-19 4:48 PM

. Its called not having to because your opponent is weak and useless and stands no chance of winning ..

Jeremy Corbyn was a 200-1 outsider to lead the Labour Party

Theresa May is spending a lot of time electioneering.

And yet can't spare an hour for an equal TV debate with the Leader of the Opposition. *-)

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-05-19 9:56 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-05-19 4:48 PM

. Its called not having to because your opponent is weak and useless and stands no chance of winning ..

Jeremy Corbyn was a 200-1 outsider to lead the Labour Party

 

Yep that say's more about the state of the Labour party than anything else 8-) .......

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-05-19 10:02 PM

 

John52 - 2017-05-19 9:56 PM

Jeremy Corbyn was a 200-1 outsider to lead the Labour Party

 

Yep that say's more about the state of the Labour party than anything else 8-) .......

 

 

No. It says more about the state of the pollsters than anything else.

Although it probably doesn't need to after they got the General Election wrong in 2015,and then the EU referendum wrong. Maybe they'll get this one wrong as well and make it a hat trick :-D

Edit - no it won't be a hat trick will it because getting the EU referendum wrong was number 3.

What will it be if they get it wrong for the 4th time?

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-05-19 10:26 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-19 10:02 PM

 

John52 - 2017-05-19 9:56 PM

Jeremy Corbyn was a 200-1 outsider to lead the Labour Party

 

Yep that say's more about the state of the Labour party than anything else 8-) .......

 

 

No. It says more about the state of the pollsters than anything else.

Although it probably doesn't need to after they got the General Election wrong in 2015,and then the EU referendum wrong. Maybe they'll get this one wrong as well and make it a hat trick :-D

Edit - no it won't be a hat trick will it because getting the EU referendum wrong was number 3.

What will it be if they get it wrong for the 4th time?

 

Getting a close call wrong is par for the course for pollsters .......

 

Labour winning the election is cloud cuckoo land ;-) ........

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-05-19 10:34 PM

 

Getting a close call wrong is par for the course for pollsters .......

 

Labour winning the election is cloud cuckoo land ;-) ........

 

 

Close call *-)

He was a 200-1 outsider and won by a mile (lol)

[Brian Kirby]

Two broadly interconnected issues underlie much of this ill tempered debate.

 

1. Should we have a head of state, and if so, what type of head of state should that be and what powers should they have?

 

2. What are our armed forces really for, and who should decide how they are equipped, and when and where they are deployed?

 

Can we explore these questions without having yet another pub brawl? I wonder?

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2017-05-20 11:39 AM

1. Should we have a head of state, and if so, what type of head of state should that be and what powers should they have?

 

My suggestion is one (without extended family and hangers on) chosen by the people.

I realise the people might not make the bes choice. But its their choice. And a few years later they will get another choice. They won't be stuck with one they haven't elected, plus extended family and hangers on, plus all their descendants, plus descendants extended families and hangers on, whatever they turn out to be like, for evermore.

Brian Kirby - 2017-05-20 11:39 AM

2. What are our armed forces really for, and who should decide how they are equipped, and when and where they are deployed?

 

I think they should be for defence. Then military spending could be brought down to German levels, so the State pension could be quadrupled to German levels.

I think we should play our part by not Glorifying the sort of politicians who need an enemy to fight - like Churchill, or Thatcher over the Falklands. Because that only encouraged Blair to invade Iraq with disastrous results.

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-05-20 11:39 AM

Can we explore these questions without having yet another pub brawl? I wonder?

That would be nice :-D

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-05-20 11:39 AMTwo broadly interconnected issues underlie much of this ill tempered debate.1. Should we have a head of state, and if so, what type of head of state should that be and what powers should they have?2. What are our armed forces really for, and who should decide how they are equipped, and when and where they are deployed?Can we explore these questions without having yet another pub brawl? I wonder?

Looks like you're the only one who is addressing the 'heated' debate as a pub brawl Brian.....I have to admit in all my years I've never seen (in person) or been involved in one so maybe you have visited a different standard of pubs to me.  :-)

As for the interconnected issues I would simply say that there is only one question at issue here and that is the sanity or intent of John in posting his irrelevances, his bile, his hatred of most things linked to the establishment regardless of relevance.

Defend his 'views' if you will, add labels to myself and others who consider he needs help or is of questionable sanity.  He continues to post his nonsense in the face of numerous comments demonstrating loss of patience with the idiot..........ooops 'Ad hominem' there...naughty me......I suppose if one is accepting he has 'views' that should be respected then one just needs to look at the relevance of those views and hey presto we have ourselves 'A TROLL'.

[soarer]

Why is he a troll because you don't agree with him ?

 

Also I haven't read him throwing insults and teddies

Everywhere..