By:
Advanced search…

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Brexit

Should they stay or should they go now?

  • Remain in the EU

    Votes: 6 42.9%

  • Leave the EU

    Votes: 7 50.0%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Total voters
    14
Spartanmack said:
I do - you have the quotes. Was he not accusing Brexit voters of being racist? Did I attribute an actual utterance of "Hitler" to either Zakaria or Stephanopoulos? Recall that my original post mentioned idiots like Zakaria, Stephanopoulos AND THEIR ILK. It was about the general sentiment of elitist media. I never attributed specific comments to either of them or their ilk. It's at worst a slightly exaggerated but accurate characterization of their collective sentiment. They refuse to address any of the substantive pro-brexit arguments instead they chose a side and dismissed the opposition as overly emotional racist, bigots. Again, i stand by original comments.
Click to expand...

Yes - you did - from #49 -

Fareed Zakaria and George Stephanopolous and their ilk have been calling the referendum reason vs. xenophobia and predicting the collapse/demise of Britain and the UK. They're trotting out the same tired line - if you don't agree with the stated leftist, globalist, pro-central planning position then you're racist and probably at least as bad as Hitler.

If that's not attributing actual utterances to them, then what the fuck is it?

Comparing Hitler to anything that isn't Stalin or Mao Tse Tung is gratuitous and sophomoric at best, and to many, including me, somewhat offensive.

Worse is claiming someone made the comparison who didn't.

Here is exactly what Zakaria said.

From Merriam-Webster

Full Meaning of Xenophobic: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

Like every word, xenophobia has its specific meaning, then various interpretations and connotations.

At its elemental meaning, xenophobia isn't all good or all bad - every creature that wants to survive needs a basic fear/respect for that which is unknown.

Let's take a hungry caveman walking down a path, and he comes on something that he thinks might be edible, but he doesn't recognize it - is it poison?

Let's say it is - rather than taking the risk, the caveman let it be, kept on down the path and came upon an edible he recognized as safe.

In this situation, the caveman's xenophobia was elemental to his continued survival.

Zakaria describes himself as a Centrist - he's probably a little to the left of that.

It seems that, were he British, Zakaria would have voted against the Brexit - this isn't a radical position - if you lined up 25 Brits, and they counted off "for" "against" down the line, you would get to Limey 25 until the decision was made, statistically.

Zakaria reports the demographic breakdown of the Brexit vote split with statistics from the Wall Street Journal, and Zakaria uses the word "xenophobia" twice - once quoting something from the Economist, and once himself, describing Trump as wanting to re-make the Republican party into "a populist, protectionist, nationalist and xenophobic party (the libs on the board, of course are going to say "remake it to that from what?)"

Well...Trump says he wants to put a moratorium on Muslims because he's afraid they'll be ISIS, and also stop Mexicans from coming in, because he's afraid they're going to be rapists and murderers...I mean, he said it - that's xenophobic by definition; does that mean he's wrong (that's a rhetorical question)?

I'm not sure if I find a journalist using the word "xenophobic" in this discussion is necessarily labeling them a racist - I think it's just a word to describe what's going on.

Dissatisfaction with the ease of immigration into the UK was obviously a concern to the pro-Brexit; how is reporting that accusing anybody of being racist?

Zakaria never once described the pro-Brexit voters as being "racist."

As for Stephanopolous, everybody knows he's a Democrat.

He had the Ambassador to the US Kim Darroch on.

Darroch had been against the Brexit; he seemed not happy; I think gloom and doom is sort of an exaggeration.
 
Last edited:
tinselwolverine said:
Yes - you did - from #49 -

Fareed Zakaria and George Stephanopolous and their ilk have been calling the referendum reason vs. xenophobia and predicting the collapse/demise of Britain and the UK. They're trotting out the same tired line - if you don't agree with the stated leftist, globalist, pro-central planning position then you're racist and probably at least as bad as Hitler.

If that's not attributing actual utterances to them, then what the fuck is it?

Comparing Hitler to anything that isn't Stalin or Mao Tse Tung is gratuitous and sophomoric at best, and to many, including me, somewhat offensive.

Worse is claiming someone made the comparison who didn't.

Here is exactly what Zakaria said.

From Merriam-Webster

Full Meaning of Xenophobic: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

Like every word, xenophobia has its specific meaning, then various interpretations and connotations.

At its elemental meaning, xenophobia isn't all good or all bad - every creature that wants to survive needs a basic fear/respect for that which is unknown.

Let's take a hungry caveman walking down a path, and he comes on something that he thinks might be edible, but he doesn't recognize it - is it poison?

Let's say it is - rather than taking the risk, the caveman let it be, kept on down the path and came upon an edible he recognized as safe.

In this situation, the caveman's xenophobia was elemental to his continued survival.

Zakaria describes himself as a Centrist - he's probably a little to the left of that.

It seems that, were he British, Zakaria would have voted against the Brexit - this isn't a radical position - if you lined up 25 Brits, and they counted off "for" "against" down the line, you would get to Limey 25 until the decision was made, statistically.

Zakaria reports the demographic breakdown of the Brexit vote split with statistics from the Wall Street Journal, and Zakaria uses the word "xenophobia" twice - once quoting something from the Economist, and once himself, describing Trump as wanting to re-make the Republican party into "a populist, protectionist, nationalist and xenophobic party (the libs on the board, of course are going to say "remake it to that from what?)"

Well...Trump says he wants to put a moratorium on Muslims because he's afraid they'll be ISIS, and also stop Mexicans from coming in, because he's afraid they're going to be rapists and murderers...I mean, he said it - that's xenophobic by definition; does that mean he's wrong (that's a rhetorical question)?

I'm not sure if I find a journalist using the word "xenophobic" in this discussion is necessarily labeling them a racist - I think it's just a word to describe what's going on.

Dissatisfaction with the ease of immigration into the UK was obviously a concern to the pro-Brexit; how is reporting that accusing anybody of being racist?

Zakaria never once described the pro-Brexit voters as being "racist."

As for Stephanopolous, everybody knows he's a Democrat.

He had the Ambassador to the US Kim Darroch on.

Darroch had been against the Brexit; he seemed not happy; I think gloom and doom is sort of an exaggeration.
Click to expand...

It's what I said it was - a slight exaggeration. That's pretty obvious. They (the media) have boiled the argument down to reason vs. racism whether they actually uttered the word Hitler or not is totally irrelevant. I'm not taking it back or apologizing for it.

I don't care if Zakaria thinks himself to be a centrist or admits his true colors. How is saying journalists are more open to diversity than the general public, saying the pro-Brexit voters based their arguments purely on emotion, fear of immigrants, etc, rather than on facts, completely ignoring any other reason for why anyone would vote to leave the EU - how is that not accusing the pro Brexit voters of being racist? He didn't point out the valid arguments for their dissatisfaction with the ease of immigration, he said it was entirely emotional, no mention of the strain on their welfare system - they just FEAR immigrants.
 
Last edited:
xenophobia is different than racism.

just like

Republitardism is different than Republicanism.
 
Spartanmack said:
It's what I said it was - a slight exaggeration. That's pretty obvious. They (the media) have boiled the argument down to reason vs. racism whether they actually uttered the word Hitler or not is totally irrelevant. I'm not taking it back or apologizing for it.
Click to expand...

I don't know...aren't the most hated immigrant groups other white people, like pollacks and dagos and god damned Spaniards and mother fuckin' greeks and Micks pouring into Northern Ireland from the southern UK border?

There's always been dark skinned people coming in from the various parts of the British Empire going back centuries...
 
Last edited:
Spartanmack said:
He didn't point out the valid arguments for their dissatisfaction with the ease of immigration, he said it was entirely emotional, no mention of the strain on their welfare system
Click to expand...

He didn't talk about that in his opening synopsis, but I'm listening to the show again right now, and he had a number of panelists who talked about this sort of thing...Zanny Minton Beddoes pointed out that a lot of people didn't see economic gains but instead "saw overcrowding for medical care, overcrowded schools and rising housing prices...many of these people were not xenophobic at all..." historian Andrew Roberts pointed out that not controlling immigration didn't allow for planning for these things that Beddoes mentioned...so both these people on his panel indicated that there was more to it than racism, and Zakaria didn't go ape shit on them, or anything...
 
Spartanmack said:
It's bad but far worse than the financial press is the MSM coverage of the Brexit - idiots like Fareed Zakaria and George Stephanopolous and their ilk have been calling the referendum reason vs. xenophobia and predicting the collapse/demise of Britain and the UK. They're trotting out the same tired line - if you don't agree with the stated leftist, globalist, pro-central planning position then you're racist and probably at least as bad as Hitler. So sure of the virtue and the flawlessness of their opinions that the only possible explanation for dissent is racism. It's like an entire industry of Michturds only with better educations.

As if the world's 5th largest economy with the 4th largest military is just going to disappear or fade into obscurity, left behind by the rest of the EU. Please, give me a break. Switzerland, not part of the EU and the EU takes in 55% of their exports. Norway, also not part of the EU and the EU buys 81% of their exports (granted, a lot of that is oil). Both those countries have thrived while the EU has stagnated for decades - they haven't thrived despite not being in the EU, it's BECAUSE they're not in the EU that they've outperformed economically - socially as well,
Click to expand...

Norway actually pays the EU quite a bit of money every year - roughly 80% of what the UK pays. While they are not part of the EU, they must abide by a large portion of EU rules in exchange for access to the single market. They are consulted on new regulations and rules, but ultimately have no say, as they cannot vote on them. One would claim that the UK had a better deal within the EU than Norway does as an 'outsider'.

Switzerland also has to pay the EU dues every year, and while they are not as much as Norway (or the UK) its still a large sum. In addition, their trade agreements with the EU force them to comply with many of the laws and regulations that the UK had already been exempt from.

The UK will never get a deal close to what either Switzerland or Norway currently have. Both of those models were negotiated when the EU was expecting them to join down the line.

The UK will be fine. They won't be coming to the table with a weak hand against the EU. They will negotiate fair, arms length deals and treaties with the EU and the rest of the world. Someday, Germany is going to wake up to the fact that the price they're paying for cheap currency isn't worth it but it's possible the EU could fall apart even before then if other countries follow the UK's lead when they realize Germany is the only country benefiting from the EU - besides the welfare states that are going to be getting bailouts every half generation or so.
Click to expand...


I think the UK will be fine - in the sense that its not going to crumble and turn into Somalia or some other 3rd world country due to leaving the EU. However, I find it unlikely that it will be stronger economically, or that the average UK citizen will have a 'better life'.

I disagree with the notion that the UK will be able to negotiate fair, mutually beneficial trade deals with the EU. First of all, its damn hard to get a decent deal done in an ideal situation. This is far from ideal, this is a divorce...What benefit does the EU have in being reasonable with the UK? If the EU negotiates with the UK and give them a 'fair' and reasonable deal, it will appear to other countries that leaving the EU 'might not be such a bad idea'.

The UK had a pretty damn good setup with the EU, they had all of the benefits the EU provided, yet were cushioned from a lot of the 'handcuffing' rules and regulations the other EU countries have to follow. They then bitch and moan and finally give Europe a gigantic 'F U' by leaving - then assume that new fair trade deals will just happen? Nahhh - not buying that for a second...

Not to mention something everyone is overlooking - but who from the UK is an experienced trade negotiator? The UK has ZERO experience negotiating trades with any country (EU or Non). That was one of the benefits of being an EU member, they had a whole team of people negotiating on your countries behalf...now they will need to literally negotiate trade deals with every single country on earth, (a large portion of which are pissed off at them) from a position of weakness, all without having more than a handful of people remotely qualified at the task.

Good luck is all I can say...
 
Part of the message board narrative I've seen or read between the lines (that means don't call me out on it, I can't quote anyone, but I'm not assigning the position to anyone specifically either) is that Germany is aggressively letting people in due to a strong aversion to anything that might look like nationalism, racism, or xenophobia, and they've dragged the EU with them. But I wonder if any of the motivation to be aggressively pro-immigration stems from an observation of the economic success of the United States coupled with the inscription on the Statue of Liberty about "huddled masses".
 
tinselwolverine said:
He didn't talk about that in his opening synopsis, but I'm listening to the show again right now, and he had a number of panelists who talked about this sort of thing...Zanny Minton Beddoes pointed out that a lot of people didn't see economic gains but instead "saw overcrowding for medical care, overcrowded schools and rising housing prices...many of these people were not xenophobic at all..." historian Andrew Roberts pointed out that not controlling immigration didn't allow for planning for these things that Beddoes mentioned...so both these people on his panel indicated that there was more to it than racism, and Zakaria didn't go ape shit on them, or anything...
Click to expand...

Did he agree with them? did he mention any of their points when he explained the pro-Brexit vote? No. He boiled it down to "facts vs. emotion", the emotions of people who are unreasonably afraid of immigrants. Maybe he wasn't as blunt idiots like Joe Biden who said Brexit was concocted by a bunch of "demagogues peddling xenophobia" but it's clear he agrees.

And so what if xenophobia isn't by definition all good or all bad? Do you not think he meant it as an accusation of "otherism" accusing "LEAVE" voters of discrimination? Clearly, he did.
 
Last edited:
tbone413 said:
Norway actually pays the EU quite a bit of money every year - roughly 80% of what the UK pays. While they are not part of the EU, they must abide by a large portion of EU rules in exchange for access to the single market. They are consulted on new regulations and rules, but ultimately have no say, as they cannot vote on them. One would claim that the UK had a better deal within the EU than Norway does as an 'outsider'.

Switzerland also has to pay the EU dues every year, and while they are not as much as Norway (or the UK) its still a large sum. In addition, their trade agreements with the EU force them to comply with many of the laws and regulations that the UK had already been exempt from.

The UK will never get a deal close to what either Switzerland or Norway currently have. Both of those models were negotiated when the EU was expecting them to join down the line.
Click to expand...

So what if the UK has to pay to trade with the EU, this isn't only about money. It's about control of their own borders, central bank, commercial, political and legal systems - all things the EU either already impacted or soon would as they move to a political union. They can pay the same amount, possibly more and still be better off - they can utilize their resources and produce how they see fit, not how the EU tells them to. they can make common sense regulations that don't hamstring their commercial interests in favor of other countries. They won't be subject to absurd policies and regulations from bureaucrats that don't have their best interests in mind.


tbone413 said:
I think the UK will be fine - in the sense that its not going to crumble and turn into Somalia or some other 3rd world country due to leaving the EU. However, I find it unlikely that it will be stronger economically, or that the average UK citizen will have a 'better life'.

I disagree with the notion that the UK will be able to negotiate fair, mutually beneficial trade deals with the EU. First of all, its damn hard to get a decent deal done in an ideal situation. This is far from ideal, this is a divorce...What benefit does the EU have in being reasonable with the UK? If the EU negotiates with the UK and give them a 'fair' and reasonable deal, it will appear to other countries that leaving the EU 'might not be such a bad idea'.

The UK had a pretty damn good setup with the EU, they had all of the benefits the EU provided, yet were cushioned from a lot of the 'handcuffing' rules and regulations the other EU countries have to follow. They then bitch and moan and finally give Europe a gigantic 'F U' by leaving - then assume that new fair trade deals will just happen? Nahhh - not buying that for a second...

Not to mention something everyone is overlooking - but who from the UK is an experienced trade negotiator? The UK has ZERO experience negotiating trades with any country (EU or Non). That was one of the benefits of being an EU member, they had a whole team of people negotiating on your countries behalf...now they will need to literally negotiate trade deals with every single country on earth, (a large portion of which are pissed off at them) from a position of weakness, all without having more than a handful of people remotely qualified at the task.

Good luck is all I can say...
Click to expand...

What was so good about their setup with the EU? What benefit did they have to being beholden unto a dysfunctional regulatory regime in a union that sought to empower itself at their expense more and more every day? It's laughable to think they were reaping such huge benefits by being part of a near zero growth economic zone that was bringing them down - one that has already needed on massive bailout and is bound to require more because of all the cheating welfare states. I find it really odd that people buy into this, particularly when you see that the only countries in Europe who have seen decent growth AREN'T in the EU, even if they pay the EU to trade with them.

And do you really think there is no one in Britain capable of holding their own at the negotiating table with the mighty EU? Seriously, it is legitimately delusional to believe that. Do you think the UK is like Cambodia in the 70s after the Khmer Rouge wiped out all the business and educated classes? You do realize that London is the largest financial center in the world, bigger than even NY, right? I'm sure there are some deal makers left that can sit across from EU bureaucrats and hold their own. It's also crazy to believe that they'll be negotiating from a position of weakness outside of Europe (let alone within) because the US, Russia, Japan, China, Indonesai, South Korea, Australia, etc are all pissed at them for leaving the EU. Despite what Obama said, they're not going to give a crap about whether or not the UK chose self-determination over subjugating themselves for the privilege of subsidizing a bunch of welfare states.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

Founded in 2011, Detroit Sports Forum is a community of fanatics dedicated to teams like the Lions, Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Wolverines, and more. We live and breathe Detroit sports!

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Threads
32,896
Messages
1,109,088
Members
942
Latest member
Proud Pheasant

Affiliates

    Discussion Hub
Back
Top