The Off Topic Topic

[Eddie Teach]

I only play Number Place.

[Razgovory]

I think Petain thought along the same lines.

He wanted an all powerful National Assembly? Let me just say he hid it well.

Using Germans to drive out undesirable elements and restore a proper government.  The British called theirs the "Glorious Revolution" the Vichy called theirs the "National Revolution".

[Valmy]

Using Germans to drive out undesirable elements and restore a proper government.

That was not the role played by the Dutch (who, you know, are not Germans) in 1688 or the Germans in 1940. Driving out the Catholics and James was not something that would have given Parliament much trouble physically but they needed a new King and political cover. The Germans were not invited in by Petain who would have preferred they had rather not done so.

I think Petain was thinking 'this defeat is due to Socialist wimps making France decadent and weak, I will nurse it back to health after this debacle just like I did in 1917'.

I am not sure what is weirder.  The fact you would connect these events or that you would bring it up without explanation and presume I would somehow get what you are talking about.

[Martinus]

SEBASTIAN SHAKESPEARE: New face of Britannia is... a Pole! Royal Mint announced a new £2 coin modelled on immigrant

BySebastian Shakespeare for the Daily Mail

Published: 01:41 GMT, 18 March 2015 | Updated: 09:16 GMT, 18 March 2015

The Royal Mint announced with great fanfare that it was bringing back Britannia on the new £2 coin this year, but there will be one momentous change which is likely to have Nigel Farage reaching for the smelling salts.

For Britannia, the enduring symbol of our national identity, has now been modelled on a Polish immigrant.

Eminent sculptor Antony Dufort was inspired by his wife Dorota Rapacz, 44, who moved to Britain in the wave of Eastern European immigration that followed Tony Blair's victory in 1997.

It's possible that it could be based on my wife,' admits Dufort, 66. 'I had to think long and hard about how to represent a strong young woman. It had to be something that fitted in with tradition as well.'

Born in Lubien, southern Poland, Dorota studied in Warsaw and moved to England in 2001, marrying Dufort shortly after meeting him in a bronze foundry where she worked as a technician.

Dufort, who also created the bronze sculpture of Margaret Thatcher that stands opposite the statue of Sir Winston Churchill in the House of Commons, tells me: 'It is definitely not based on the face of Lady Thatcher. It's an amalgam of the faces of my female friends. All my models are friends.'

The Royal Mint has reintroduced Britannia to circulation after a six-year absence. She used to be on the reverse of the 50p coin before being replaced by contemporary designs.

The Mint describes the female icon, who first featured on coins in the 17th century, as 'the people's heroine' and 'a symbol of renewed optimism'.

Dufort proposed a more modern representation of Britannia featuring a head and shoulders in close-up. For the first time the head is big enough for facial features to be recognised.

Given that Poles are the largest foreign group in the UK, it is perhaps only appropriate that the new face of Britannia pays a nod to them.

Yesterday the Home Office revealed that Poland tops the list of foreign babies born to migrants in the UK. Since 2002 almost 1.2 million Poles have been issued with National Insurance numbers.

Who could have foreseen that Her Majesty, who features on the other side of the coin, would have to share pride of place with a Polish migrant?

Daily Mail.

[Martinus]

One of the comments: At least she's not a German, like the other side of the coin. 

[Admiral Yi]

Hott?

[Martinus]

Hott?

A 44 y.o. bronze foundry technician.

Make a guess.

[Razgovory]

Using Germans to drive out undesirable elements and restore a proper government.

That was not the role played by the Dutch (who, you know, are not Germans) in 1688 or the Germans in 1940. Driving out the Catholics and James was not something that would have given Parliament much trouble physically but they needed a new King and political cover. The Germans were not invited in by Petain who would have preferred they had rather not done so.

I think Petain was thinking 'this defeat is due to Socialist wimps making France decadent and weak, I will nurse it back to health after this debacle just like I did in 1917'.

I am not sure what is weirder.  The fact you would connect these events or that you would bring it up without explanation and presume I would somehow get what you are talking about.

I think a foreign army landing on the shores of England helped their causes quite a bit.  The last time Parliament tried to take out the king it turned into a big deal.  I do see a connection between the a foreign army invading and suppressing a religious with the support of some of the elites and a foreign army invading and suppressing a religious group with the support to some of the elites.  In both cases the elites of the invaded country papered over the invasion by declaring it a "revolution".  The big difference between them was that one country had it's invasion and "revolution" overturned by another invasion, and one did not.  If say the Stuarts were reinstalled by another invasion, the participants of the "Glorious Revolution", would have almost certainly have been hung as traitors.  If the Axis had won the war, it's unlikely Laval probably wouldn't have been shot.

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

[Eddie Teach]

Hott?

A 44 y.o. bronze foundry technician.

Make a guess.

Was she at work or not? 

[Valmy]

I think a foreign army landing on the shores of England helped their causes quite a bit.  The last time Parliament tried to take out the king it turned into a big deal.

Indeed and it turned it to be a big deal this time as well.  England was not James' only Kingdom.

I do see a connection between the a foreign army invading and suppressing a religious with the support of some of the elites and a foreign army invading and suppressing a religious group with the support to some of the elites.

This is what I don't get. I never said anything about religion at all, I was talking about parliament, yet you said 'Marshall Petain had a similar line of thinking'. No he didn't. He did not feel that way about the National Assembly. I guess due to the fact that there were religious matters involved in both connects them in some way. Does this mean the Emperor Hadrian or the Crusades were also connected to the Glorious Revolution? Hindu persecution by the Mughal Empire? The Spanish Conquest of Mexico?

In both cases the elites of the invaded country papered over the invasion by declaring it a "revolution".  The big difference between them was that one country had it's invasion and "revolution" overturned by another invasion, and one did not.

In one case Parliament invited a claimant to the English throne to come give it a go, like they had for centuries. The "revolution" was not papering over a Dutch occupation, the "revolution" was getting William to agree to all the limits on his power and establishing a permanently protestant England.  And the army that invaded was a mercenary army that included many Britons, its main thing was it was Protestant and thus not seen as fully foreign by many of the English. Indeed if one were to read what the supporters of William were saying at the time one could be forgiven for thinking James was the foreigner. This is because people thought differently about things in the 17th century than they do today. Far from "papering over" the arrival of William's Army the people were cheering them in the streets.

The revolution in France was not the German invasion, it was the 10th of July 1940 maneuverings of Pierre Laval that ended the 3rd Republic and established an authoritarian state. The idea being that fascism had proven itself superior to decadent capitalism because of our humiliating defeat and with this system we shall rebuild a strong France inside of a fascist Europe. How is that papering over anything? How is this thinking in anyway similar to what Parliament was thinking during the Glorious Revolution?

If say the Stuarts were reinstalled by another invasion, the participants of the "Glorious Revolution", would have almost certainly have been hung as traitors.

The Stuarts did this once before after a revolution and they hung a few ringleaders leaving the vast majority of the parliamentary side alive. So no need to get all theoretical. But in neither case do I think it was treason. But then I am not a royalist.

If the Axis had won the war, it's unlikely Laval probably wouldn't have been shot.

I suppose. So? I mean even Laval knew he was taking a risk there. I guess the question is: was Laval a traitor? If you really thought he was being earnest about wanting to revitalize France and he just happened to be fascist I don't think you could. He crosses the line later when he uses the Germans to force Vichy to take him back after he tossed them though. At that point he is most certainly acting as an agent of Germany against France and a case could made. After that I think he would have been seen as a contemptible traitor even if the Axis had somehow won. Oh and an invading Army did not end Vichy unless you consider the German occupation of unoccupied France an invasion. For the record I also do not think treason was the right charge for Petain either.

Well ok I guess you might get them for undermining France's ability to carry on the war, a little encouragement from Petain might have given Paul Reynaud the guts he needed to go to North Africa and carry on the war. But I don't think that was what the dinged Petain for, though I do not recall the details of his trial.

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

Well you might not dare but I am not terribly worried about being put to death by the English Parliament of 1688 or the Provisional French Government of 1945 so I think I do dare.

But again how does any of this show that the Parliaments who supported William and later the Hanoverians had thinking similar to Petain?

[derspiess]

Boy, you get the strangest looks from people when you carry a chainsaw through a city alley.

[Martinus]

So, Aaron Schock resigned (great name, by the way) over bringing a "full time photographer"/male companion on a full paid Congress trip.

Is it wrong to find some closet case anti-gay republicans hot?

[Valmy]

Is it wrong to find some closet case anti-gay republicans hot?

How can it be wrong when it feels so right?

[Martinus]

 

[garbon]

So, Aaron Schock resigned (great name, by the way) over bringing a "full time photographer"/male companion on a full paid Congress trip.

I think it was all the expenses, particularly the plane flight and the reimbursed mileage that was like double the miles he had on his personal car. I had to look specifically for a bit about the photographer to come / apparently that was early on in the scandal.

edit: And sure he had a worked out body but I think in general he looked a bit goofy.