oscar's forum posts

#1 Posted by oscar (124 posts) -

ALEXIS, NOOOOOO!!! ¡La bomba gigante no será la misma sin ti! Wish you the best, duder!

#2 Edited by oscar (124 posts) -

I had to look this up because I honestly I haven't heard much about this subject, but at the same time I think it's fascinating and similar in a way to the Canada/Quebec situation. I'm still not sure what Scotland's desire for independence is. Is it a lack of representation in the UK government? A pride thing? A "we'd be better by ourselves" thing? What the people in Scotland (as opposed to just politicians) think about the whole thing?

Here is just one of the things I found when searching for pros and cons:

Popular 'For' ArgumentsPopular 'Against' Arguments
Many laws which are enforced in Scotland are decided and passed in England, and are intended primarily for England without much consideration for the Scottish people. For example, the winter allowance for pensioners in Scotland is the same as it is in England, despite the much colder and harsher climates which exist in Scotland.Unity is strength: in its unity with the UK, Scotland is part of a very powerful, rich and influential state. Becoming independent would arguably significantly decrease Scotland's global presence and influence.
Scotland would have a much stronger economy. Scotland owns huge shares in oil, which we wouldn't have to split if we became independent.Scotland's continued membership of the EU is not clear, as the European Commission has not been asked by the UK Government for a clear response. Experts and politicians have disagreed on whether or not Scotland's status as an EU member state could be established before Scotland becomes independent. The terms of this continued membership are also not guaranteed.
Britain is arguably founded on extremely undemocratic ideologies. For example, 26 seats in the house of lords (a senior committee which amends and passes laws) are taken up by bishops purely because they're members of the church of England. The Scottish parliament has a much more democratic system, which does not reserve places for church members and uses a proportional electoral system for appointing members of parliament. Becoming independent would therefore arguably be a step for democracy.There has been speculation over how Scotland will survive if we no longer have access to the British "money pot". Many people say that going independent is an extremely large economic gamble, especially in times of recession and rising unemployment.
In becoming independent, we'd need to integrate ourselves more heavily with Europe. There are plans by independence parties here to set up ties with Nordic countries such as Norway and Denmark. Adopting a Nordic political model would arguably be more beneficial for Scotland, which traditionally and politically has more in common with Nordic countries than with England. SourceBritain owes some very large debts to foreign countries, which Scotland is partly responsible for. In becoming independent we'd have to negotiate which debts we should pay off, and how much we're singularly responsible for. We have so many ties with the rest of Britain that this would be a very tedious process that would take several years.
Scotland is currently heading in a different political direction from the rest of the UK. Scotland is represented to the world by the Conservative party which we have rejected for years.Scotland will have a smaller voice on the world stage if independent.
#3 Posted by oscar (124 posts) -

Have you insane and misguided black site users ever gone from one site with black a background to one with a light background during the same browsing session? Have you tried reading the forums here for five minutes then going to google or wikipedia? If so, I hope you're having fun having the white text burned into your freaking retinas!

#4 Edited by oscar (124 posts) -

@splodge: I don't know what you're talking about! I'd appreciate it if I was not confronted about this topic a third time.

#6 Edited by oscar (124 posts) -

I think the way the question is worded can lead to negativism and non-constructive criticism. Why dwell on what and why we don't watch if we don't watch it? How is it constructive to say "I avoid everything Patrick does" or "I'm cautious about content driven by Brad" when we can freely avoid it and the fact that other people enjoy it doesn't take anything away from what we do enjoy?

It's very simple: the stuff they make is there for those who want to watch it and if you're not one of those people, then it's not for you.

I'm all for the staff focusing their efforts on the content that most people demand, but this egocentric approach of "first let me tell you what I avoid or don't like" has absolutely no potential of informing the staff about what you are interested in. Wouldn't it be more constructive to focus on what we want to see rather than complain about we can easily avoid?

I'm gonna be completely honest and say I found the premise of the thread to be a crappy excuse to start a circlejerk about the particular staff members certain people don't like, considering how many people outright say things that boil down to "anything that _____ produces." Even if it didn't start that way, it seems people saw it as an opportunity to turn it into that, helping absolutely nobody, not even themselves, in the process.

#7 Posted by oscar (124 posts) -

I just found out about this. Amazing stuff!

#8 Posted by oscar (124 posts) -

Congratulations!

#9 Edited by oscar (124 posts) -

I'll enjoy whatever, thankyouverymuch!

#10 Posted by oscar (124 posts) -