Is the United Kingdom no longer a sovereign state?

Post Reply New Topic

At least partly from Merriam-Webster Online:

----------
Main Entry: 1prog·ress
Pronunciation: \ˈprä-grəs, -ˌgres, US also & British usually ˈprō-ˌgres\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French progrés, from Latin progressus advance, from progredi to go forth, from pro- forward + gradi to go — more at pro-, grade
Date: 15th century
1 a (1) : a royal journey marked by pomp and pageant (2) : a state procession b : a tour or circuit made by an official (as a judge) c : an expedition, journey, or march through a region
2 : a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) : advance
3 : gradual betterment; especially : the progressive development of humankind
----------

I know the name, and I might have heard him on the radio a few times several years ago. But, I cannot recall anything I might have ever heard from him.



Ranging from some true whackos to a man from Sovereignty International -- http://sovereignty.net/p/gov/ggtut.htm -- who name escapes me at the moment, I have heard quite a variety of people talk about so-called "conspiracy theories" ... but Dr. Stanley Monteith -- http://www.radioliberty.com/ -- is my all-time favorite. Dr. Stan makes it clear there is no actual conspiracy running, just people doing what people do.



Not as far as I know! I am simply a man who has listened and observed over these past 30 of my 59 years, and who is absolutely convinced man can never successfully rule himself.

Alex Jones once claimed on his radio show that Hollywood is controlled by Arabs. That tells me a lot. I don't think he believes his own BS somehow.

I think most of those kinds of shows are categorized as "entertainment" ...

But they are cut and edited to insert your personal biases into the words. So yes, this is a matter of interpretation as you are associating connotations with those words that I am not.

None of that changes any facts. Pluralism has now become the order of the day, and that leaves no room for anyone who does not embrace pluralism:

----------
Main Entry: plu·ral·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈplu̇r-ə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1818
1 : the holding of two or more offices or positions (as benefices) at the same time
2 : the quality or state of being plural
3 a : a theory that there are more than one or more than two kinds of ultimate reality b : a theory that reality is composed of a plurality of entities
4 a : a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization b : a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state
— plu·ral·ist \-list\ adjective or noun
— plu·ral·is·tic \ˌplu̇r-ə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective
— plu·ral·is·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
----------

Where many people believe the theory of "more than one or more than two kinds of ultimate reality ... composed of a plurality of entities", others believe there is but One who is ultimately sovereign and almighty. Now of course, Merriam-Webster has there made no specific reference to deity or whatever, yet we all know the so-called "war on terror" is about relieving the world of "terrorists" unwilling to conform to pluralism ... and I leave that for you to do with as you will ... but of course, you say we have no free will, so that leaves each of us to only do as we must, I guess.

----------
Main Entry: tol·er·ance
Pronunciation: \ˈtä-lə-rən(t)s, ˈtäl-rən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : toleration
3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
4 a (1) : the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure <developed a tolerance to painkillers>; also : the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific antigen (2) : relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor b : the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food
----------

Next, what shall we do with that? Why have you no "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own"? Or am I reading far too much into your implications that people like me need to fall by the wayside?

----------
Main Entry: free·dom
Pronunciation: \ˈfrē-dəm\
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care> d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom> e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom> f : improper familiarity g : boldness of conception or execution h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>
2 a : a political right b : franchise, privilege
----------

And now what about that? Would you truly have me believe you embrace "progress, pluralism, tolerance and freedom" either by my definition or by any other?!

Nevertheless, I look not down upon your youth.

More or less true, and will become more true as society continues to progress. That doesn't mean we'll be hunting down and killing you.


This is the relevant definition of pluralism in this context.


For crying out loud, the "war on terror" was started by a right wing Christian. Bush certainly was no cultural relativist. Given all indications, he was unable to comprehend anything beyond simple black-and-white absolutes. The idea that Bush's War on Terror is some sort of covert attempt to wipe out monotheists is just absurd.

---------
Main Entry: tol·er·ance
Pronunciation: \ˈtä-lə-rən(t)s, ˈtäl-rən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : toleration



A ridiculous assertion. Many people who promote tolerance in general make an exception for the intolerant- I find this hypocritical, and that's why I am always in favor of preserving everyone's rights, yours included. Even though I disagree with you, I don't wish to forcibly silence you. Anyways, I didn't say anyone needed to do anything, I simply stated a fact- such outmoded attitudes will fall by the wayside. This is a readily observed cultural trend.

Also, I prefer the definition from dictionary.com:
tol⋅er⋅ance  [tol-er-uhns]
–noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

Mainly I like this definition better because I don't like the connotations that are introduced with the word "indulgence." Dictionary.com's definition is also slanted with the inclusion of "fair, objective" as descriptions. I would uphold definition 3 above, and definitions 1 and 2 without the first two adjectives.


Yes.


This sentence doesn't even make sense.

You surprise me a bit there. I had only said: "yet we all know the so-called 'war on terror' is about relieving the world of 'terrorists' unwilling to conform to pluralism ... and I leave that for you to do with as you will" ...

In any case, there was/is nothing covert about the so-called "war on terror". GWB made its purpose quite clear in the 9-20 speech: Conform or die.

LJ, at this point I just have to question your comprehension of the English language. Your claims aren't making any sense. The definition of "pluralism" that you were going by was clearly inappropriate for this context, and from that definition you went on some sort of psychotic paranoid tangent to infer that Bush launched a series of wars on the other side of the planet with the ultimate goal of killing you.

And the whole point of "pluralism" is that you do not have to conform.

No, you do not, and to do so only distracts from discussion.



I do not recall making any claims.



Then use your own.



Stick your innuendo in your ear, Orwell.



I do my best to speak clearly and infer nothing. What you might read from between lines is your own affair.



I have said no such thing!



Possibly, but that is in conflict with the so-called "war on terror".

Try to understand, my fellow: I do not come here to debate, argue, compete, throw spitballs or whatever else along that kind of line ... and I apologize for even engaging you: I had no idea you were going to act as you are.

I began this thread with a question related to eventual global governance, and I have heard an answer. Following that, we got off into all of this we have since been talking about ...

Some criminals flew some airplanes into a couple of buildings, then GWB put all so-called "radical Muslims" on notice to either conform to pluralism or die. Will the same happen to all monotheists? Absolutely not!

Lee, speak clearly. I can't tell what you're trying to convey. That was the point of my last post- what you've been writing is so fuzzy and ambiguous that it lends itself to all sorts of insane interpretations, such as the one I just gave you.

You said the goal of the war on terror was to send a message to "non-pluralists" that they must "conform or die." You identified yourself as a non-pluralist. Thus, Bush launched the war on terror to, ultimately, kill you and others like you. What else am I to conclude you mean?


Not "possibly." That's in the freaking definition of pluralism. And the war on terror is misguided at best, so I won't bother defending it, but the goals do not seem to have much relation to furthering pluralism.


No, he put radical Muslims on notice to stop committing terrorist acts (or assisting terrorists) or die. They don't have to "conform to pluralism," whatever the hell that means. They don't even have to embrace any semblance of "progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom." GWB gladly allied with repressive, reactionary, intolerant regimes so long as they would assist in fighting terrorist organizations.

This is what annoys me about conspiracy theorists. They always make such vague, innuendo-filled claims, and then backpedal when you call them on any concrete statement. I'm violently reminded of Glenn Beck. "Obama has revealed himself over and over again to be a person who has a deep-seated hatred of white people, or white culture, or I don't know what..."
"You can't say Obama doesn't like white people, most of his administration is white."
"I'm not saying he doesn't like white people."

I personally look forward to the day the United States of America encompasses the whole world. Did you all know that that was what Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes stories, wanted?

?? He did? news to me. The only American reference I remember in all of Sherlock Holmes (not counting other works, maybe it's in one of those... was 'the Orange Pips', where Sherlock and Co. fight the Ku Klux Klan in England...

I think within the EU, you're going to have a certain measure of independence. The aims of each country are going to be divergent enough that they'll have a @#$ of a time concocting a coherent, organized foreign policy. Sure, there's a currency, but it's a slim reed to base a mono-bloc state on...

Ha ha, I'm sure he wrote of it. I think Sherlock Holmes said it and I've always assumed Arthur Conan Doyle liked to think of himself as the bohemian detective.

I'm in favour of countries uniting but I would rather us Brits were joining America than the European Union. I think the American Constitution is the best legal document in the world. The foundations American politics are built on are more solid than anywhere else.

The European Union will have to do though. It's better than being too disorganised. The main thing stopping unity though is the different languages. How can economic unity exist without free exchange of labour? There are Italians who are brilliant cooks who could work in England but they don't speak English.

There are clever English people who could sort out the corruption in the Italian universities but they don't speak Italian. There are excellent designers in France who could design better infrastructure in Germany but they don't speak German. People from different countries have different skills they could bring to other countries but with the language barriers people are unable to.

When did I become responsible for your conclusions? What you read into things is your affair, not mine.

A global governance or "New World Order" is being (or as some would say, "has now been") established, it is pluralistic and it has no room for people like me who do not embrace it. Do you have any disagreement with that simple statement?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Are you talking about some new cultural trends, where "pluralism" and "diversity" are embraced as buzzwords?

If this cultural trend has no room for you, well, so what?