America vs Europe
-
@Katja said:
Actually, we Euro's do make the same mistake about America. But
basically, it's still just a collection of different states. We Euro's
are slowly going in the same direction, with our European Community.
Maybe we'll be the United States of Europe, one day.
Let's see... Who still have to join? Well, the swiss, of course. Part
of Turkey. Russia is already willing, apparantly. Several Eastern
European countries have already joined. Now, if those British wouldn't
be so stubborn then we're already close to becoming one nation...
-
@SysRq2000 said:
Hehe, it's funny how most americans regard europe as a single country... last time I checked it wasn't.
-
stupid quoting buggy argh, die, evil, code.............................. splat
-
Yeah -- America, where the individual is king. Until he/she does
something unpopular, like crticicise the President's reckless behaviour.
Frankly, you can have your burger and Coke. I'd rather have a bloody,
barely-dead Angus Porterhouse, a fat lobster and something palatable to
drink. You've got nothing I don't have. Well, except the inability to
restrict the spread of cheap, high-capacity handguns among youth
because the gun lobby (not the NRA -- the actual arms manufacturers who
sponsor the lobby) can spend enough money to override the popular will.
(Read the Second Amendment -- it doesn't mention "poppin' a cap in yo'
ass" anywhere, but it does talk about well-regulated militias.) Or a
large number of people who either can't afford their health care plans
or the medications they require (don't try to BS me here -- I have
family in the health sciences in the States, and I know whereof I
speak) because the insurance industry and the pharmaceuticals have the
same kind of power as the gun folks. These are things we eliminated
democratically, and yes, there was weeping and gnashing of teeth among
the people who felt they had the right to fleece us.
Raw capitalism ain't all it's cracked up to be. The US has survived
several episodes that would have been called Depressions without the
New Deal stuff in place. Once it's all torn down by the neocons, you'll
see a bit of a difference -- it'll be Grapes of Wrath all over again.
-
Hey Katja...living in the Netherlands and all...do you come across many American tourists?
I was wondering what sort of experiences you had with them. Like if they came in swaggering, acting all American. You know, loud and obnoxious, spitting on the sidewalks, using terms like "whassup!" and "hiz-ouze".
I'm curious about that, because after a while (I would imagine) you start to stereotype the Americans. So even if a nice American were to come to your country he would be rejected because of those crappy Americans who came before him.
And I just thought I would let you know that many Americans do indeed act like they do on television. In the US you see many "rap wannabees" that run up to you and scream "Up top baby! Up top!" (That means give me a high-five in case you didn't know.) They are (in most cases) very confrontational. Very "in your face"...literally. If I were a European and knew I had to deal with an American (like had them over my house in a student exchange) I would be very apprehensive. You just know they would have wild parties, blast loud music (rap of course), and destroy things.
-
<FONT size=1>Hey Katja,
Let’s say you had arranged to have a "student exchange" visitor from America to stay at your home from 3 months. On the day you pick them up from the airport, all seems well. You meet them, and they seem pleasant enough. But as soon as you arrive to your home, they drop their bag and yell, "Wh-Wh-Wh-Whasssap!!! I’m in tha Hiz-ouze!!!"
At that point, what do you do?
Because in your mind, you know exactly what it’s going to be like living with that person…for 3 long months.
You may be more polite than I am, but I would say, "Pick up your bag. Get out. I don’t care how you find your way back to America. But just get out of our home."
Wouldn’t you do the same? Or would it take 3 months of loud rap music, wild parties, and a destroyed home to convince you that, yes, this was a bad idea?
</FONT>
-
Betreft: Re: America vs Europe
A "student exchange" vistor? Ewwww, anything but that. Besides, the
place where I live is a girls-only place and no guys (except relatives)
are allowed inside! [:D] So that would not happen where I live...
But I share my house with three other girls (soon 4) and we just share
the major tasks of keeping things in order. We all pay a share of the
rent and some of the other expenses and basically, if one of us
misbehaves, she will get three angry girls against her, so things tend
to be pretty peaceful and quiet here. One big, happy family, except
we're not related. [:D]
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but people in the Netherlands like the following things:
- The American movie "Road Trip"
- Anything "National Lampoon"ish
- Any film with Drew Barrymore in it
- Any Adam Sandler movie
- Any of the "Scary Movie" films
- David Hasselhoff
-
Betreft: Re: Betreft: Re: America vs Europe
- The American movie "Road Trip"
- Anything "National Lampoon"ish
- Any film with Drew Barrymore in it
- Any Adam Sandler movie
- Any of the "Scary Movie" films
- David Hasselhoff
Any more examples?
-
I stand corrected. [:P]
-
Betreft: Re: Betreft: Re: Betreft: Re: America vs Europe
Then again, I do have a good laugh about those "dumb" things that are
going on in the USA. Like the fact that you can sue anyone for almost
everything. Say, you go to a cafe and order a cup of coffee. And
because you're in a hurry, you drink it immediately after they've put
the cup in front of you. Of course you'll burn your lips and tongue and
perhaps have a few more internal burns but hey... Afterwards you can
just sue the cafe-owner for millions and millions of $$$ and even win
it because they have served you a very dangerous beverage...
The same with smoking. People know smoking is dangerous for their
health and still smoke two packs every day. And when they're about to
die because of lungcancer, they just sue the tobacco industry so their
family will have a nice amount after their deaths.
Or perhaps any burglar who breaks into someone's house and falls from
the stairs in that house because it was a bit slippery and dark inside.
Serious injuries as a result but hey, sue the house-owner to make his
working area so dangerous. And win, of course...
Then again, a country that votes a movie-star for president and a
terminator as governor doesn't seem to care much about intelligence,
but just about appearances. As long as things appear to be okay,
there's no problem. No matter what's going wrong all the time, just
cover it up and keep quiet about it.
Things like teen pregnancies, for example. Sure, abstinence would
prevent those but teens have these raging hormones in their bodies
(believe me, I know about them) that will just force them to choose a
different path sooner or later. And with no proper education about
other birth control methods or safe sex, it's no wonder that there are
that many teenage mothers in the USA...
Or gun control... Kids just go to school armed to the teeth, shoot
anyone that moves and shoot them again if they keep moving before they
kill themselves when the police arrives. Snipers in the big city using
life targets to practice their skills. Parents shooting their children
because the child comes home late and they think it's a burglar. Or my
favorite: people shooting their own feet because they thought the gun
was not loaded. Yet no one dares to even mention that these things
would not happen if there was much better gun control.
Or the Janet Jackson incident. So she did show her tit in public, big
deal. You didn't even see a nipple because that part was still covered
up. No one here would even get excited about it yet in the USA they are
already giving huge fines to the broadcasting companies and they're
considering even further steps. As if a bare breast is such a big a
deal.
-
@CPound said:
So, any way you put it, Communism, Socialism, Facism...it's all crapism. The only "ism" I want is Capitalism. Mixed with democracy.
You know what? I'm in the mood for a triple-deluxe cheeseburger with all the fixings and an extra-large coke...and I think I'll super-size it too. Just because I can. Just because I live in a country where the individual is truly king. America is so awesome. I can taste it.
As other people have mentioned when replying to your trolling/posting, there is no democracy in the US. You have a two-party system funded entirely by huge corporations whose sole interest is making money. There is no benefit to the people considered. We have the same thing in the UK, it's gotta be said, but somehow I don't think it's quite so apalling.
The gun lobby, the oil lobby, you name it. All these corporations already hugely rich, telling the government that handguns shouldn't be banned, raping Alaska for oil is fine, it's hilarious. Americans have been so brainwashed into believing that it's their free-will, liberty and right to buy and handgun that will kill their children, drive a 2 ton car that gets 15 mpg when it would be better for them, the people, if they didn't buy guns and drove more economical cars. But that wouldn't be good for Smith and Wesson or Haliburton, would it?
Why do you want a triple deluxe cheeseburger? Because McDonald's have been increasing the portion sizes for years in the hope that you'll buy more and more, get fatter and fatter, all the time pouring money into their pockets. I like to eat big meals, myself, but I've seen no obesity like American obesity, no greed like American greed, no ignorance like American ignorance. Your blind adherance to and revelling in the status quo does nothing to change my mind on these matters.
-
As an Englishman, you have to admit that the US is just better at some things than us Europeans. Ya know, take for instance the recently published league table of executions - the US is right up there with Iran and Vietnam - the yanks must be so proud. The United Kingdom, in fact, no European countries are to be seen in that list :
MOST EXECUTIONS
Total in 2004
1 China 3,400* 2 Iran 159* 3 Vietnam 64* 4 United States 59* 5 Saudi Arabia 33* 6 Pakistan 15* 7 Kuwait 9* 8 Bangladesh 7* 9= Egypt 6* = Singapore 6* = Yemen 6* But its not just that, according to official stats (google it) if the whole world were to consume Earth's resources the way that the Europe does we'd need two Earths to sustain it! How shocking is that. But yet again, we're behind the US on this too, because if the whole world lived as the USA does we'd need FIVE Earths to sustain it.
Why not think about it when eating your super-mega-sized lard burger.
-
@Katja Bergman said:
Then again, I do have a good laugh about those "dumb" things that are going on in the USA. Then again, a country that votes a movie-star for president and a terminator as governor doesn't seem to care much about intelligence, but just about appearances. As long as things appear to be okay, there's no problem. No matter what's going wrong all the time, just cover it up and keep quiet about it.
Things like teen pregnancies, for example. Sure, abstinence would prevent those but teens have these raging hormones in their bodies (believe me, I know about them) that will just force them to choose a different path sooner or later. And with no proper education about other birth control methods or safe sex, it's no wonder that there are that many teenage mothers in the USA...
Or gun control... Kids just go to school armed to the teeth, shoot anyone that moves and shoot them again if they keep moving before they kill themselves when the police arrives. Snipers in the big city using life targets to practice their skills. Parents shooting their children because the child comes home late and they think it's a burglar. Or my favorite: people shooting their own feet because they thought the gun was not loaded. Yet no one dares to even mention that these things would not happen if there was much better gun control.
Or the Janet Jackson incident. So she did show her tit in public, big deal. You didn't even see a nipple because that part was still covered up. No one here would even get excited about it yet in the USA they are already giving huge fines to the broadcasting companies and they're considering even further steps. As if a bare breast is such a big a deal.<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> was not always like this. Overall <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> is the best place to live and invest in, even though there are some crazy things going on. These crazy and absurd things are because of the new religious movements in which the Christian fundamentalists are trying to takeover and integrate religion and state to reflect their “moral” values. It’s so absurd that I read a survey that 67% of Americans (in the survey) believe in the bibles account of human creation over evolution.
-Katrina
-
Luckly not all americans are totally stupid, about 49%. But religion sure dictates what goes on here, that and corporations of course.
-
@kittykat said:
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> was not always like this. Overall <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>
is the best place to live and invest in, even though there are some
crazy things going on. These crazy and absurd things are because of the
new religious movements in which the Christian fundamentalists are
trying to takeover and integrate religion and state to reflect their
“moral” values. It’s so absurd that I read a survey that 67% of
Americans (in the survey) believe in the bibles account of human
creation over evolution.-Katrina
Yeah, though as far as I understand it there's quite a revolution happenning in right wing/evangelical belief presently. Lots of people are moving away from the usual arguments between liberalism & conservatism and trying to understand the bible they way it was actually written. In this case, Genesis, a lot of people are realising that it was most probably picture language passed from generation to generation by the camp fire, and not some kind of dictation to Moses while he was picking up the 10 commandments.
The problem, as I understand it, is that evangelical theology relies heavily on the view that every single word of the bible comes from God (in the sense that God intended it to be precisely as it is whether the words came directly or indirectly - though most theologians have dumped the 'dictation' theory), and that way evangelicals have some kind of "rule book" through which to judge right and wrong. I think its because people like simplicity - it becomes easy to say "this is right" or "this is wrong" if the bible is taken like that.
But like I say, I think a lot of people are coming round to the idea that the bible is a book of people's experiences with God. Not a rule book, or blueprint as some people insist. People become a heck of a lot more accepting when they take understand it this way - it stops being about politcs and people judging people, it stops being about right and wrong, but about your experience with God. Perhaps Christianity would have more of a positive influence on the US and US Politics if that were the case. Perhaps the Pope might suggest that "if you're going to have promiscuous sex then do it protected" rather than consign millions of Africans to die from the result of aids and leave lots of orphaned kids (as mentioned by The Times this week). The way I understand it, God has an answer for sin in Jesus, but hell no lets insist they pay the price anyway. I mean what is this deal with us humans having to be right & stubbornly x or y to the point of death ?!
I made an interesting observation the other day.
I think the theory of evolution is an excellent theory and I think, to some degree, that it's been observed in a micro level (if I understand it right we haven't had enough time to observe it on a macro level yet). But evolution as a theory for the 'origin of species' is a more interesting one. Personally I have absolutely no idea about the method the universe came into being - I think primarily because I wasn't there. But the interesting thing is that in one circle there are a lot of people who believe in 'creation' theory and you're not allowed to challenge them, or you're looked down on, and in another circle there are a lot of people who believe in evolution as the theory for the 'origin of species' and again, you're not allowed to challenge them or you're looked down on. As far as I understand it both theories require as much belief as each other and there are two distinct camps that are totally convinced. Whatever happenned to telling the truth by saying "I don't know!" ? We have a few theories, lets enjoy them and investigate them, but why do we need to take sides? Come on now, we should be bigger than that by now.
Whatever happenned to enjoying a mystery?
I'm sure its the fault of the USA. :)
-
"know in places like France, and Portugal, meal times are taken very slowly, and enjoyed"
well, between France and Portugal, it's Spain [:P]
the [:@] water point it's true, if you drink normal water out of the city you are living, you need to know you better drink "bottle" water ... but I recommend you drink red wine like "rioja" [;)]
but the problem is when you return to the office and you feel, well...., more happy than usual[6]
-
@CPound said:
Ok, here's the deal on "secret police". We do
indeed have freedom of speech and writing in the US. You just can't be
stupid about it. Why on earth would you press the envelope by
saying/publishing anti-government slogans during a time of
international crisis and terrorism? Like the Dixie Chicks for example.
What the !@#$ were they thinking? That was
just moronic. You can say/write what you want, but c'mon, be smart and
loyal to the country you live in. If you don't like it you can always
leave. No one is keeping you here.I think you'll find that a lot of european countries take a slightly different view of "freedom of speech". They tend to not tolerate racism, incitement to violence etc. but will allow most anybody to disagree with their government in public, using pretty much any language they like. The people in europe also tend to not get upset by a bare breast on national TV :-)
Europeans (sweeping generalisation) think that it's stupid to shut people up just because they have different opinions, and to let hate and violence spread through the country. And they like breasts.
-
@ZxSpectrum48Khz said:
the [:@] water point it's true, if you
drink normal water out of the city you are living, you need to know you
better drink "bottle" water ... but I recommend you drink red wine like
"rioja" [;)]
In the Netherlands, the tap water is of the same quality as bottled
water that you can buy in the shops. Meaning that it's perfectly fit
for human consumption. The reason why this is possible is because the
waterpipe system in the Netherlands is pretty modern but also because
temperatures here are generally low enough to keep it all fresh. In
southern countries the tap water is often unfit for consumption because
of the higher temperatures that seem to have some influence on the
growth of anything nasty in the water. Even bottled water can be
dangerous there if kept outside in the heat for about a month. You need
to keep it cool for it to be drinkable.
-
I think the theory of evolution is an excellent theory and I think, to some degree, that it's been observed in a micro level (if I understand it right we haven't had enough time to observe it on a macro level yet). But evolution as a theory for the 'origin of species' is a more interesting one. ... We have a few theories, lets enjoy them and investigate them, but why do we need to take sides?
The scientific term "theory" means a rational system of ideas with evidence behind it, not just a hypothesis. There is good evidence for evolution, and none for creation (beyond the bible). I encourage you to read Darwin's original work on evolution, The Origin of Species, which is quite readable and not only explains the evidence behind his theory but anticipates and responds to many of the objections that ignorant creationisms still make today. The reason for "taking sides" is that knowledge of the origin of species is actually useful in understanding the similarities and differences between them.
-
@Katja Bergman said:
@ZxSpectrum48Khz said:
the [:@] water point it's true, if you drink normal water out of the city you are living, you need to know you better drink "bottle" water ... but I recommend you drink red wine like "rioja" [;)]
In the Netherlands, the tap water is of the same quality as bottled water that you can buy in the shops. Meaning that it's perfectly fit for human consumption. The reason why this is possible is because the waterpipe system in the Netherlands is pretty modern but also because temperatures here are generally low enough to keep it all fresh. In southern countries the tap water is often unfit for consumption because of the higher temperatures that seem to have some influence on the growth of anything nasty in the water. Even bottled water can be dangerous there if kept outside in the heat for about a month. You need to keep it cool for it to be drinkable.Ewww, I would never drink water in a foreign country... I don't need a case of Montezuma's Revenge!! Only liquor and beer for me [:P]
-
@joodie said:
@CPound said:
Ok, here's the deal on "secret police". We do indeed have freedom of speech and writing in the US. You just can't be stupid about it. Why on earth would you press the envelope by saying/publishing anti-government slogans during a time of international crisis and terrorism? Like the Dixie Chicks for example. What the !@#$ were they thinking? That was just moronic. You can say/write what you want, but c'mon, be smart and loyal to the country you live in. If you don't like it you can always leave. No one is keeping you here.
I think you'll find that a lot of european countries take a slightly different view of "freedom of speech". They tend to not tolerate racism, incitement to violence etc. but will allow most anybody to disagree with their government in public, using pretty much any language they like. The people in europe also tend to not get upset by a bare breast on national TV :-)
Europeans (sweeping generalisation) think that it's stupid to shut people up just because they have different opinions, and to let hate and violence spread through the country. And they like breasts.
Word. Or you have freedom of speech - and everything that comes with it, or you have some sort of mild censorship, like here in europe. I mean - in the US, I can't critisize the governments policies, but I can perfectly say that all Jews should be massacred, or that those horror's didn't happen in de 2nd WW... I don't know how fucked up your thinking must be when you say those last 2 are far less worse than the first one. If you can't critisize your government, does that mean it's perfect? Right... Also - there is no single law in the US that prohibits you from critisizing your government, but you can get convicted for it (I don't even wanna know on what grounds).
Here in Belgium, and Europe in general, I know I can't say certain things - which are clearly defined and which are things a normal sane person would not say anyway. That's why freedom of speech in the US is an illusion. If you say the wrong things, they'll sue you anyway, the hypocrisy...
And naked breasts - bring em on [:D] [:P]
-
@KoFFiE said:
And naked breasts - bring em on [:D] [:P]
I wonder... If you were a woman, would you stare at your own breasts
all day? [:)] After you've seen them a couple of times you'd get used
to them, I assume. Which is the big secret in Europe. We've seen so
many bare breasts here that no one really gets excited over them.
-
@Katja Bergman said:
We've seen so
many bare breasts here that no one really gets excited over them.
Speak for yourself :-P
-
@Katja Bergman said:
I wonder... If you were a woman, would you stare at your own breasts all day? [:)] After you've seen them a couple of times you'd get used to them, I assume. Which is the big secret in Europe. We've seen so many bare breasts here that no one really gets excited over them.
I wouldn't know. If I'd be a women, I'd prolly be looking at guys, AND I'd have my own breasts then, why look at someone else's? [;)]
And by only seeing breasts you don't always get excited, the attitude/expression of the "owner" is for a large part responsible for that... And excited - what's that? It's not that I immediately have a problem in the lower-body region by just looking at them, but I can't deny it's a pleasant thing to look at [:D] ( ok - there are exceptions - but I'm talking in general [:)] ).
-
CPound, I find it really troubling that views like this seem so wide spread in the US today:
"Ok, here's the deal on "secret police". We do
indeed have freedom of speech and writing in the US. You just can't be
stupid about it. Why on earth would you press the envelope by
saying/publishing anti-government slogans during a time of
international crisis and terrorism? Like the Dixie Chicks for example.
What the !@#$
were they thinking? That was just moronic. You can say/write what you
want, but c'mon, be smart and loyal to the country you live in. If you
don't like it you can always leave. No one is keeping you here."
The moment you say that you are not allowed to express anti-government
views only because it would somehow be disloyal to your country you
have effectly given up democracy!!!
Try to understand the following: "George W Bush is not
the US". It does not make me a non-patriot to disagree with a
particular administration's views no matter what the situation is. As
long as I am not doing anything illegal I am exercising my freedom of speech.
And no, I will not leave. Why should I have to leave this country only
because I do not agree with you??? What kind of sentiment is that? What
you in effect is saying is "I do not respect people that do not share
my views and if they don't share my views they should chose to leave".
Such arrogance and intolerance. A democracy is based on the majority's
respect of the minority, give that up and you do not have a democracy.
You have an un-free state.
I find it amazing that the propaganda machine has been able to equate
questioning Bush or his henchmen with being un-American or less of a
patriot. Being able to express dissent and opposing views is exactly
what makes a democracy great and this is so fundamentally important
that i cringe and get physically ill to my stomach when I see views
such as what CPound expressed above.
CPound, I am sure you did not mean to but in effect, if everyone was to
follow your 'advice' above, the moment that happened the US would no
longer be a democracy. Voltaire said something like 'I despise your
view of opinion but I would die defending your right to express it' (I
apologize for not using the exact correct quote). Now that is the
cornerstone of democracy. The moment you veer from that you are just a
few steps on a slippery slope away from giving up your freedom.
-
@joodie said:
@Katja Bergman said:
We've seen so many bare breasts here that no one really gets excited over them.
Speak for yourself :-PHey, I can see a nice couple of breasts every day. You won't hear me complain. After a while, you'll just learn to live with them and ignore them most of the time... [:P]
-
@abc123 said:
The moment you say that you are not allowed to express anti-government views only because it would somehow be disloyal to your country you have effectly given up democracy!!!
Hey, doesn't freedom of speech also include the right to be against democracy? Don't you have the right to be disloyal to your country if you disagree with it's current actions? I'd assume that there could be a group of people in the USA who would demand that the USA becomes a large Monarchy. [:P] With King Bush III as the Royal leader... Or even an American Empire?
Oh, well... The thing I dislike about democracies is that they are actually representing the voices of the largest minority. Why is that? Well, say there are elections and 60% of the people will vote. And about 50% of these votes are for the winner. That means this person actually had only 30% of all the people voting for him. Definitely not a majority. Just remember that 70% of all the people just didn't choose for this candidate. About 30% had another preference and about 40% couldn't find the right candidate to begin with.
Democracies suck because in most cases you have to choose between two evils. One option is just slightly less worse than the other. And you have to assume that the average person is capable of making the right choice here? This site would not exist if people were able to make correct choices simply because the average person is dumb. People make bad choices sometimes. Can you really expect the average person to be smart enough to decide what is good for the whole country?
Fortunately, modern democracies are recognising this too. That's why they are privatising as much as possible. Simple things just like public transit, or power lines, telephony, etc. If these things were under control by the government, then the people could have any influence over it all. But with these companies in private hands, the only people who have any control are the people who have bought any shares. And by slowly changing the democracy into a large coorporation with shareholders, the government itself just becomes less important and the new rulers will be the people with money, the people with the most shares in those companies.
A person like Bill Gates already has about as much power as George Bush. And no one elected Bill Gates, yet he can almost dictate what operating system you should be running on your computer. Companies will become the new rulers in the future, with shareholders having power while others just have no voice in all the decision-making...
Is this a bad development? Or a good one? I don't know. But it seems to be the future, both for the USA as for Europe. And perhaps soon in other democracies too. Basically, commerse will end all democracies...
-
So how are you all going to vote on the European Constitution?
Personally I have not decided although I have debated about it with a few people.
Drak
-
Goodness. I thought I made my point so painfully clear but the two people who responded to it took it the exact opposite way. Re-read the post below. I have made stronger emphasis that the first part is a quote from CPound which my post objects to.
Start of my original post in which I address a post from CPound. I have added clarifying comments:
CPound, I find it really troubling that views like this seem so wide spread in the US today:
<Start quote from CPound's post>
"Ok, here's the deal on "secret police". We do indeed have freedom of speech and writing in the US. You just can't be stupid about it. Why on earth would you press the envelope by saying/publishing anti-government slogans during a time of international crisis and terrorism? Like the Dixie Chicks for example. What the !@#$ were they thinking? That was just moronic. You can say/write what you want, but c'mon, be smart and loyal to the country you live in. If you don't like it you can always leave. No one is keeping you here."
</End quote from CPound's post>
The moment you say that you are not allowed to express anti-government views only because it would somehow be disloyal to your country you have effectly given up democracy!!!
Katja, read this sentence again. What it states is this: Everyone has the right to be against the policies of the current government. This does not make a person less of a patriot. I understand that this is what you also believe but somehow you read this sentence to mean that I was stating the opposite.
Try to understand the following: "George W Bush is not the US". It does not make me a non-patriot to disagree with a particular administration's views no matter what the situation is. As long as I am not doing anything illegal I am exercising my freedom of speech. And no, I will not leave. Why should I have to leave this country only because I do not agree with you??? What kind of sentiment is that? What you in effect is saying is "I do not respect people that do not share my views and if they don't share my views they should chose to leave". Such arrogance and intolerance. A democracy is based on the majority's respect of the minority, give that up and you do not have a democracy. You have an un-free state.
What the above states: If I think George Bush is an idiot or do not agree with his policies is does not make me less of a patriot. To state, as CPound did, that people should 'Love it (the government) or leave it (the country)' is intolerant and ignorant.
I find it amazing that the propaganda machine has been able to equate questioning Bush or his henchmen with being un-American or less of a patriot. Being able to express dissent and opposing views is exactly what makes a democracy great and this is so fundamentally important that i cringe and get physically ill to my stomach when I see views such as what CPound expressed above.
I can't think of a way to make this any clearer. I think you both must have not read this part of the post :) . As a clarification for the non-native English speakers, dissent means 'to not agree' (with the government in this context).
CPound, I am sure you did not mean to but in effect, if everyone was to follow your 'advice' above, the moment that happened the US would no longer be a democracy. Voltaire said something like 'I despise your view of opinion but I would die defending your right to express it' (I apologize for not using the exact correct quote). Now that is the cornerstone of democracy. The moment you veer from that you are just a few steps on a slippery slope away from giving up your freedom.
Again, this part cannot be made any clearer.
Koffie, how on earth could you arrive at this (taken from your post) "It is your right abc123, that saying something unpatriotic is stupid, but is that a fact?"? My entire post was stating the exact opposite!!!!
-
Hmm, lots of points here:
Water: In Ireland, the water is generally very safe (the only notable
exception being in a small town down the country where the local water
has in excess of 50 times the allowable amount of Thorium and Uranium.
Water is now brought in by tanker.
Religion: Just as Europe has more or less shaken off the domination of
christianity (here in Ireland we were one of the last countries to
render the catholic church impotent) the US seems to have become
obsessed with it. This is NOT just harmless eccentricity, when you
start using it to promote abstinence over contraception, and to claim
gay people are immoral or against nature or whatever.
Freedom of speech: In this particular country, oddly enough, we have
basically absolute freedom of speech. (Number one according to the UN).
There's no official secrets act, unlimited criticism of the government
is allowed (and happens; for a positive and sensitive portrayal of our
government see http://langerland.com :) ) and even, sadly, nonsense
like holocaust denial and some hate speech. Personally, I think we
should be harder on those who spread hatred.
Patriotism is thankfully rather unusual. There's nothing like an oath
of aleigance. Flag burning is completely permissable, where not in
conflict with environmental regulations ;), If you walk through Dublin,
you'll see a few Irish flags and a few European flags; on SOME
government buildings. Schools and universities do not generally use
flags, and any PRIVATE person with a flag would be thought of as a bit
odd.
We have more than two political parties! Imagine! And they're not all right-wing (in fact, currently, none of them are). They range from far-left (communists, socialists and socialist workers, greens) through moderate-left (labour) to centrist (note that they are still more left-wing than the US democrats) (current ruling coalition). There's also a mad-right-wing party, Christian Solidarity, but they've never had a TD (MP-equivalent). The president is generally fairly non-partisan, and effectively powerless. Very major decisions must be made by referendum.
America's economic system is geared towards protecting companies rather than protecting workers and consumers. Thus poor or no regulation, impotent unions... and shareholder profits. This is really something you have to make up your own mind on. Lots more on this here: http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usa (Don't read the thing about the meat-processing plants if you live in the US or ever plan on visiting).
Pointless wars, torture, internment camps. 'Nuff said. (This is a particular big issue in Ireland because the US flew troops and at least one person destined for that Cuban prison-camp through one of our airports. A lot of people feel we shouldn't have given them permission to do so (the airport in question has traditionally been open to the US and Soviet Union; the Moscow - Havana route stopped over there for instance). They also broke the rules; they brought weapons through, despite not being allowed do so.)
Europe's not perfect. Far from it. But we are at least moving in the right direction. We have sensible labour laws, socialised health systems, political freedom of speech... Most constituent countries have full-rights same-sex civil unions or are in the process of bringing them in, a few have gay marraige... Most have laws banning discrimination in the workplace and in provision of services... America, on the other hand, appears to be heading into the darkness. The PATRIOT act, internment camps, increased role of religion on lawmaking... Bad trend. Just my opinion.
-
Another WTF is Americans going on about European secret police. We DO
NOT have secret police. (Well, not so's you'd notice, anyway) America
is apparently swarming with them (NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security and
such).
And there's nothing good about patriotism. Patriotism is just blind
belief in the goodness of one's country. This is obviously mad. You
should be free to be as unpatriotic as you like; that's freedom. Being
allowed deny the holocaust isn't freedom. Being allowed advocate hatred
against minority groups isn't freedom. Being allowed say whatever the
fsck you like about your country and the people that run it, and say it
publicly without fear of retribution; that's proper freedom.
-
@CPound said:
And oh yeah, I love the fact that we don't have secret police breaking down our doors because we "published the wrong thing" or "opened our mouths when we shouldn't have".
Yeah, that's right, you have the FBI for that, no need for secret police [:P]
http://members.aol.com/TRITACGAMES/FBI.html - The FBI Raided Tri Tac Games (suspected of publishing the wrong thing - "...looking for "phony FBI identification badges" and "illicit government operation manuals")
http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/safe/safe/cases/umich-baker-story/Baker/timeline.html - John Baker case (again, wrong thing - "...who was arrested for publishing a fantasy of rape, torture and murder")
Sometimes they don't need to come breaking down the doors, because they act before that:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1836585 - AP Protests FBI's Seizure of Package
Peace,
-Esa [<:o)]
-
@Jacob K said:
Saddam Hussein reigned in the same fashion that Hitler did. He needed to be brought down.
So true, but I *really* doubt that it had much to do with actual decision to take him down. More like a nice little extra for PR purposes.
I mean, world has plenty of places/leaders that are even worse than Iraq and Saddam was, but can’t see anybody (US or Europe) rushing to take them down. Hell, some of them are even allies (to US and/or Europe). Take Saudi Arabia for example, country that has gross human rights violations. No rush to replace their government and bring democracy to the people…
-Esa
-
@mattparkins said:
As an Englishman, you have to admit that the US is just better at some things than us Europeans. Ya know, take for instance the recently published league table of executions - the US is right up there with Iran and Vietnam - the yanks must be so proud. The United Kingdom, in fact, no European countries are to be seen in that list :
MOST EXECUTIONS
1 China 3,400* 2 Iran 159* 3 Vietnam 64* 4 United States 59* 5 Saudi Arabia 33* 6 Pakistan 15* 7 Kuwait 9* 8 Bangladesh 7* 9= Egypt 6* = Singapore 6* = Yemen 6* Why not think about it when eating your super-mega-sized lard burger.
Did you think that maybe the United states has more PEOPLE than England? Maybe this could have something to do with why they have more executions than England? Just a thought there.
Also, You're being far more ignorant than any American I've seen on this board so far with that last comment. We're seriously not all fatasses. Seriously. Also, almost every fast food chain has been working hard to cut down on the fatty foods.
-
@elnerdo said:
Did you think that maybe the United states has more PEOPLE than
England? Maybe this could have something to do with why they have
more executions than England? Just a thought there.
Also,
You're being far more ignorant than any American I've seen on this
board so far with that last comment. We're seriously not all
fatasses. Seriously. Also, almost every fast food chain has
been working hard to cut down on the fatty foods.
You didn't research this one well.
US Population: 300million US Executions in 2004: 59
UK Population: 60million UK Executions in 2004: 0
EU Poplulation: 460million EU Executions in 2004: 0
Note that in the top ten, 6 are Islamic states and one (China)
routinely executes people for corruption and tax evasion (this may not
be such a bad idea ;) ). The EU considers execution to be a barrier to
entrance, along with effectively requiring a minimum standard in womens
and gay rights and a few other things. Execution is completely illegal
in all EU states, and in most cases has been for a long time. Map
showing the types of countries who execute:
Note
that about two thirds of the red countries have executed this century;
few of the orange countries have. The US and Japan are the only
developed-world countries red on that map.
Prison Population of US: 669 per 100,000 (ten times that of UK or
China, 20 times that of Scandinavian countries). This is the highest
known in the world (figures for North Korea are not available), both by
percentage and by actual number of interned people. Racial bias is also
far higher than in the UK, for instance.
The US has the world's highest obesity rate:
. Despite the "hard
work" of the fast food chains (they still haven't gotten the meal sizes
down to what THEIR OWN RESTAURANTS in Europe serve; who knew GIVING
PEOPLE LESS UNHEALTHY FOOD was that technical?), the fat people keep
getting fatter. Government regulation doesn't seem to have been
seriously considered.
But yeah, it was unfair to say that any PARTICULAR American was fat. Just that America as a nation is fat.
-
You know something..? I forgot completely what I was trying to prove there. And I'm not sure what either of us accomplished with that argument. On that note, I guess I'm too used to living in the NorthEast US. Here it's big news if anyone gets executed. It's the rednecks in the south that ruin it for us.
Now, since I've lost that small argument that I foolishly didn't research first. I'll look through this thread for another....
Ok, I've found one.
@Katja Bergman said:Then again, I do have a good laugh about those "dumb" things that are going on in the USA. Like the fact that you can sue anyone for almost everything. Say, you go to a cafe and order a cup of coffee. And because you're in a hurry, you drink it immediately after they've put the cup in front of you. Of course you'll burn your lips and tongue and perhaps have a few more internal burns but hey... Afterwards you can just sue the cafe-owner for millions and millions of $$$ and even win it because they have served you a very dangerous beverage...
The same with smoking. People know smoking is dangerous for their health and still smoke two packs every day. And when they're about to die because of lungcancer, they just sue the tobacco industry so their family will have a nice amount after their deaths.
Or perhaps any burglar who breaks into someone's house and falls from the stairs in that house because it was a bit slippery and dark inside. Serious injuries as a result but hey, sue the house-owner to make his working area so dangerous. And win, of course...
Then again, a country that votes a movie-star for president and a terminator as governor doesn't seem to care much about intelligence, but just about appearances. As long as things appear to be okay, there's no problem. No matter what's going wrong all the time, just cover it up and keep quiet about it.
Things like teen pregnancies, for example. Sure, abstinence would prevent those but teens have these raging hormones in their bodies (believe me, I know about them) that will just force them to choose a different path sooner or later. And with no proper education about other birth control methods or safe sex, it's no wonder that there are that many teenage mothers in the USA...
Or gun control... Kids just go to school armed to the teeth, shoot anyone that moves and shoot them again if they keep moving before they kill themselves when the police arrives. Snipers in the big city using life targets to practice their skills. Parents shooting their children because the child comes home late and they think it's a burglar. Or my favorite: people shooting their own feet because they thought the gun was not loaded. Yet no one dares to even mention that these things would not happen if there was much better gun control.
Or the Janet Jackson incident. So she did show her tit in public, big deal. You didn't even see a nipple because that part was still covered up. No one here would even get excited about it yet in the USA they are already giving huge fines to the broadcasting companies and they're considering even further steps. As if a bare breast is such a big a deal.
This post katja... This post is the worst one I've ever seen.
Ok, let's start picking it apart.Then again, I do have a good laugh about those "dumb" things that are going on in the USA. Like the fact that you can sue anyone for almost everything. Say, you go to a cafe and order a cup of coffee. And because you're in a hurry, you drink it immediately after they've put the cup in front of you. Of course you'll burn your lips and tongue and perhaps have a few more internal burns but hey... Afterwards you can just sue the cafe-owner for millions and millions of $$$ and even win it because they have served you a very dangerous beverage...
Why don't you check this. http://forums.obgyn.net/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.0107/0711.html
Or perhaps any burglar who breaks into someone's house and falls from the stairs in that house because it was a bit slippery and dark inside. Serious injuries as a result but hey, sue the house-owner to make his working area so dangerous. And win, of course...
When did that happen? Ever. I've heard of a few cases where a mailmen's sued because a porch step caved in when he stepped on it and he broke his ankle, but never anything like that.
Then again, a country that votes a movie-star for president and a terminator as governor doesn't seem to care much about intelligence, but just about appearances. As long as things appear to be okay, there's no problem. No matter what's going wrong all the time, just cover it up and keep quiet about it.
That movie-star president was the one who initiated the tearing down of the Berlin wall. He's was the president who ended the cold war. That doesn't seem bad. Many people consider him one of the best presidents we've had. He was Ronald Reagan, by the way. Ok, voting the terminator (arnold schwarzenegger) governer of California, I'm not sure about. I have no idea what he's done, I live on the other side of the country. So I won't say anything there, but I think that you are terribly misinformed.
Things like teen pregnancies, for example. Sure, abstinence would prevent those but teens have these raging hormones in their bodies (believe me, I know about them) that will just force them to choose a different path sooner or later. And with no proper education about other birth control methods or safe sex, it's no wonder that there are that many teenage mothers in the USA...
Or gun control... Kids just go to school armed to the teeth, shoot anyone that moves and shoot them again if they keep moving before they kill themselves when the police arrives. Snipers in the big city using life targets to practice their skills. Parents shooting their children because the child comes home late and they think it's a burglar. Or my favorite: people shooting their own feet because they thought the gun was not loaded. Yet no one dares to even mention that these things would not happen if there was much better gun control.What the hell are you talking about? No proper education about birth control or safe sex. That's ALL we learn about in health class. Yeah, we have an entire class dedicated to that. Let's see. I'm in 9th grade. I'm 15. I've had.. 3 classes of sex-ed. Is that enough? I tried to get a good chart online about teenage pregnancies, but there were too many gaps of information to compare countries. I DID Find that The USA's teenage pregnancy rate halved between 1995 and 2000.
Ahh yeah, those gun issues. <sarcasm>Yeah, I've seen 6 kids shoot themselves in the past 10 days at my school </sarcasm>. You make it sound like this is common. Sure there are school shootings every once in a while. When a crazy person does something stupid. You can't judge a country based on their crazy people. That's just stupid. I've never heard of a parent shooting a child because they came home late and thought it was a burglar. And that seems like it woulda been headline news. The reason the US doesn't have as strict gun control laws as Europe is because of that whole 'freedom' thing. It gives people a peace of mind if they have a gun. They know that if someone breaks in their house while they're there, they can shoot his head off and protect themselves/their children. (I actually support stricter gun control, but that's irrelevant). Heh, in googling this, the first thing I find is this
Stevincollege: A <FONT face="Arial Rounded MT Bold">Deadly School Shooting in The Netherlands
</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">i.</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">
</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">Or the Janet Jackson incident. So she did show her tit in public, big deal. You didn't even see a nipple because that part was still covered up. No one here would even get excited about it yet in the USA they are already giving huge fines to the broadcasting companies and they're considering even further steps. As if a bare breast is such a big a deal.
. </FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"> It is a big deal. And it's a big deal anywhere. If a broadcasting company in the netherlands that was showing mid-day, To children and adults alike on the most watched show of the year, suddenly showed pornography, even minute pornography like that. It would be a big deal to a lot of people. </FONT>
<FONT face="Times New Roman">To tell you the truth. It wasn't a big deal to most people. Most people had the same attitude you have. So what? But even so, it breaks laws and there are plenty of paranoid mothers out there who need to see that company fined for showing her children pornography.
</FONT>
-
@elnerdo said:
Why don't you check this. http://forums.obgyn.net/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.0107/0711.html
Not going to argue about the coffee thing, tho most developed countries do have some sort of laws about this sort of thing to start with....
That movie-star president was the one who initiated the tearing down of the Berlin wall. He's was the president who ended the cold war. That doesn't seem bad. Many people consider him one of the best presidents we've had. He was Ronald Reagan, by the way.
Erm, what? Best president? Iran-Contra? South Africa? Palestine? Grenada? Tax Policies? Strike-breaking? Maggie Thatcher-love? Graves of SS Officers? Whitehouse Solar Panels? War on Drugs? Jokes about the "gay plauge" (HIV/AIDS)? He probably wasn't actually the WORST, but one of the best? Come on.
What the hell are you talking about? No proper education about birth control or safe sex. That's ALL we learn about in health class. Yeah, we have an entire class dedicated to that. Let's see. I'm in 9th grade. I'm 15. I've had.. 3 classes of sex-ed. Is that enough? I tried to get a good chart online about teenage pregnancies, but there were too many gaps of information to compare countries. I DID Find that The USA's teenage pregnancy rate halved between 1995 and 2000.
The OP is probably refering to Bush's obsession with abstinence over safe sex (nice idea in theory, in practice, not so nice), general lack of unbiased information about homosexuality in sex-ed classes (in fairness, one or two of the more backward EU countries suffer from this as well) and such.
Ahh yeah, those gun issues. <sarcasm>Yeah, I've seen 6 kids shoot themselves in the past 10 days at my school </sarcasm>. You make it sound like this is common. Sure there are school shootings every once in a while. When a crazy person does something stupid. You can't judge a country based on their crazy people. That's just stupid. I've never heard of a parent shooting a child because they came home late and thought it was a burglar. And that seems like it woulda been headline news. The reason the US doesn't have as strict gun control laws as Europe is because of that whole 'freedom' thing. It gives people a peace of mind if they have a gun. They know that if someone breaks in their house while they're there, they can shoot his head off and protect themselves/their children. (I actually support stricter gun control, but that's irrelevant). Heh, in googling this, the first thing I find is this
Stevincollege: A <font face="Arial Rounded MT Bold">Deadly School Shooting in The Netherlands
</font><font face="Times New Roman">i.
</font><font face="Times New Roman">I seem to remember seeing that death by gun was something in the order of a hundred times higher in the US than the UK. Not surprising; possession of guns is either illegal or terribly difficult in most European countries. The terrorists in Northern Ireland (on both sides) largely used guns smuggled from America and bought with American money.
</font><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><font face="Times New Roman"></font>
<font face="Times New Roman"> It is a big deal. And it's a big deal anywhere. If a broadcasting company in the netherlands that was showing mid-day, To children and adults alike on the most watched show of the year, suddenly showed pornography, even minute pornography like that. It would be a big deal to a lot of people.
It's not pornography, it's accidental exposure of a body part (pornography is display of the human body or sex in general with intent to arouse the viewer). Women have breasts and vaginas, men have penises. That's life :P And fining the broadcaster was stark raving mad; they were in no way responsible.
</font><font face="Times New Roman">America's ethical/moral paradox is huge. Separation of church and state, "In God We Trust" and creationalism in schools. Mad lawsuits aplenty, yet basic protection of workers is considered tantamount to communism. Giant corporations are protected obsessively, yet besides the aforementioned lawsuits, consumer protection is minimal. The "free world", where you don't win an election by getting the most votes, where national referenda are non-existant, where there are only two viable political parties, both right wing, where people are interned indefinitely without trial, where internees are tortured and sexually abused by soldiers.
</font><font face="Times New Roman">Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against American people. But I think the American social and political system is deeply flawed.
</font>
-
@rsynnott said:
<FONT face="Times New Roman">It's not pornography, it's accidental exposure of a body part (pornography is display of the human body or sex in general with intent to arouse the viewer). Women have breasts and vaginas, men have penises. That's life :P And fining the broadcaster was stark raving mad; they were in no way responsible.
</FONT>That was the whole case. Whether it was actually a 'wardrobe malfunction' or if it was a pornographic publicity stunt is really up to the viewer. To many it seemed like it was done on purpose, this would make it pornographic. It's not really the fact that it happened that's all that bad. It's the fact that it happened on the most watched show in the US. And it was against the law. I agree with you that the broadcaster wasn't responsible, but they still could've done things to prevent it happening. <hyperbole>They could've screened half-time performers, and gotten only the least sexually arousing ones possible.</hyperbole>.
The OP is probably refering to Bush's obsession with abstinence over safe sex (nice idea in theory, in practice, not so nice), general lack of unbiased information about homosexuality in sex-ed classes
Bush doesn't really get to choose what schools teach... He can believe whatever he wants. general lack of unbiased information about homosexuality in sex-ed classes. What else is there to learn about homosexuals other than they are people of the same(Homo) sex(sexuality) who are attracted to eachother. Maybe we could learn about how they....do it. But nobody really wants to know that, and most people can figure that out for themselves anyway. School's don't teach that homosexuality is wrong as far as I know.
Erm, what? Best president? Iran-Contra? South Africa? Palestine? Grenada? Tax Policies? Strike-breaking? Maggie Thatcher-love? Graves of SS Officers? Whitehouse Solar Panels? War on Drugs? Jokes about the "gay plauge" (HIV/AIDS)? He probably wasn't actually the WORST, but one of the best? Come on.
Ok, Everything I'm about to say is guesswork and speculation. I wasn't alive when he was president, there's no one around to talk to who was alive when he was president and I only have 5 minutes so I can't research much.
The first few examples you give, "Iran-Contra? South Africa? Palestine? Grenada?" by the way you said it, I guess that bad things happened in those countries and we didn't do anything about it. Isn't this equally Europe's responsibility. Aren't you the people who rant on us for policing the world?aww crap, my mom says I gotta go. I'll continue this later today.
-
Bush doesn't really get to choose what schools teach... He can believe whatever he wants. general lack of unbiased information about homosexuality in sex-ed classes. What else is there to learn about homosexuals other than they are people of the same(Homo) sex(sexuality) who are attracted to eachother. Maybe we could learn about how they....do it. But nobody really wants to know that, and most people can figure that out for themselves anyway. School's don't teach that homosexuality is wrong as far as I know.
Hmm, if they're teaching how straights do it, no reason why not. But my issue with this is that in many cases it's apparently not touched on at all in many cases, and is often presented as a "lifestyle choice", as opposed to being part of nature.
Ok, Everything I'm about to say is guesswork and speculation. I wasn't alive when he was president, there's no one around to talk to who was alive when he was president and I only have 5 minutes so I can't research much.
The first few examples you give, "Iran-Contra? South Africa? Palestine? Grenada?" by the way you said it, I guess that bad things happened in those countries and we didn't do anything about it. Isn't this equally Europe's responsibility. Aren't you the people who rant on us for policing the world?aww crap, my mom says I gotta go. I'll continue this later today.
I'm mildly frightened that there are people in the US who don't know about Iran-Contra. You should know your own history. Read up on it. It's somewhat complicated, but basically Reagan sold weapons to the Iranians, first through Israel and then directly, and apparently used the proceeds to fund the rebel (arguably terrorist) Contra group in Nicaragua.
Reagan supported the Apartheid government in South Africa, and sold them advanced technology and nuclear materials. This was at a time when most of the world was opposed to the South African government, who segregated, 'resettled' and horribly oppressed their black majority population.
The Palestine issue is somewhat contentious; Regan supported the Israeli occupation of Palestine at a time when there were only 40,000 Israeli settlers in Palestine, and peace in the region was still possible.
The US invaded Grenada and deposed the government.
-
@elnerdo said:
Or perhaps any burglar who breaks into someone's house and falls from the stairs in that house because it was a bit slippery and dark inside. Serious injuries as a result but hey, sue the house-owner to make his working area so dangerous. And win, of course...
When did that happen? Ever. I've heard of a few cases where a mailmen's sued because a porch step caved in when he stepped on it and he broke his ankle, but never anything like that.
See http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=1642559, burglar sued owner for shooting him. Still have to say that US is better than UK in this regard, jury didn't give him a penny. In UK, similar incident (much published case of Tony Martin, shot one burglar, wounded the other) landed the shooter in jail. Other burglar won the right to sue for damages, but he didn't get nothing either (dropped the claim after shooter counter-sued).
Almost same thing here in Finland, rancher rising minks, etc (for furs) shoots at some animal activists (trying to release the animals) with shotgun and ends up fined heavily.
Then again, a country that votes a movie-star for president and a terminator as governor doesn't seem to care much about intelligence, but just about appearances. As long as things appear to be okay, there's no problem. No matter what's going wrong all the time, just cover it up and keep quiet about it.
...So I won't say anything there, but I think that you are terribly misinformed.
About what? That voters seem to care more about the image of the canditate than about his/her qualifications for the job? I mean Arnold hadn't served a day in public office before starting as a governor...
Not that this affects only US, rest of the world IMHO are the same, voters can't be bothered to study issues and so they make their choice on image alone...
I tried to get a good chart online about teenage pregnancies, but there were too many gaps of information to compare countries. I DID Find that The USA's teenage pregnancy rate halved between 1995 and 2000.
Hmm, http://www.teenpregnancy.org says that pregnancy rate dropped 33% between 1991 and 2003. Anyway, US still leads the pack in those pregnancies, but it's lowering them slowly but steadily.
I found following country comparisons (dates from 1996):
US - 83.6 per 1,000
France - 20.2 per 1,000
Sweden - 25.0 per 1,000
Canada - 45.7 per 1,000
Britain - 46.7 per 1,000
I've never heard of a parent shooting a child because they came home late and thought it was a burglar. And that seems like it woulda been headline news.
It seems not, see the story about Forrest E. Johnson in Houston Chronicle (www.chron.com, select Archives, and search for "Forrest E. Johnson" 2004-2005, story dated 09/28/04). Father comes home, sees the door open, gets a gun and enters, shoots "intruder" inside then realizes it's his son visiting from college...
The reason the US doesn't have as strict gun control laws as Europe is because of that whole 'freedom' thing.
Yeah, us outsiders have often hard time understanding american culture when it comes to guns (and goverment). Wasn't it important point of "gun freedom" to be able to defend against goverment, if necessary, and to be able to make armed revolution possible??
It gives people a peace of mind if they have a gun. They know that if someone breaks in their house while they're there, they can shoot his head off and protect themselves/their children. <FONT face="Arial Rounded MT Bold">
</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"> People should also be educated with the correct use and storage of those guns, that might make the price of that peace of mind (around 30,000 firearms related deaths per year) more worth it. It's really easy to make fatal mistake with guns, there's no calling back of the bullet after it's out the barrel. CS spray and Tazers would be IMHO better home defence weapons... </FONT>
<FONT face="Times New Roman">
</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">But even so, it breaks laws and there are plenty of paranoid mothers out there who need to see that company fined for showing her children pornography.</FONT>
As rsynnott said: "America's ethical/moral paradox is huge", there's a lot of problems with showing anything even remotely suggesting sex, but less or no problems with showing violence to children.
-
Man, that sucks, I wrote a big reply to rsynnott, but it didn't post..
bah.I found following country comparisons (dates from 1996):
US - 83.6 per 1,000
France - 20.2 per 1,000
Sweden - 25.0 per 1,000
Canada - 45.7 per 1,000
Britain - 46.7 per 1,000
United States 1996 83.6 2000 48.7 Great Britain 1995 46.7 2000 ? Canada 1995 45.7 2000 ? Sweden 1996 25.0 2000 <10 France 1995 20.2 2000 <10 That's a chart I found.
Us dropped almost 50% in 4 years.
-
@Drak said:
I haven't thought much about this. Voting... It's still new for me. [:P]So how are you all going to vote on the European Constitution?
Personally I have not decided although I have debated about it with a few people.
Drak
But I do know that I don't like our current government since it's too Christian. Especially with out prime Minister "Harry Potter" Balkenende. I don't like them to succeed so I probably vote 'NO'.
Then again, there's also some referendum site here where you can answer several multiple-choice questions and see how well this constitution complies to my ideas about what it should be. I barely scored a 50% so I confirms that I am against it. To have any doubts, I would have needed a score of over 75%. (And over 90% for a definite yes.) But with 50% my vote will be 'NO'...
-
The pregnancy number confusion is probably related to what's considered
a teen (under 18 or 20?), whether pregnancy+abortion counts as
pregnancy, and such.
-
@elnerdo said:
Bush doesn't really get to choose what schools teach... He can believe whatever he wants. general lack of unbiased information about homosexuality in sex-ed classes. What else is there to learn about homosexuals other than they are people of the same(Homo) sex(sexuality) who are attracted to eachother. Maybe we could learn about how they....do it. But nobody really wants to know that, and most people can figure that out for themselves anyway. School's don't teach that homosexuality is wrong as far as I know.
More than you think, and I am speaking out of experience...
Basically, the important thing to learn is how to deal with those homosexual feelings when you discover you have them. Learning that it's not a bad thing. Learning that you are not damned in any way for making love with anyone else of the same sex.
And well, a bit more education about how to do the lovemaking between two same-gender people would be welcome but that's why porn magazines exists. [:$]
-
Hmm, has anyone actually READ the constitution? It's quite interesting.
(tho long) http://european-convention.eu.int/DraftTreaty.asp
A few interesting points:
- Torture and "inhuman or degrading treatment" are banned, completely (yay!)
- Death penalty banned
- Forced labour banned
- Discrimination banned on grounds of race, sex, sexuality, age,
disability, country of origin, political orientation, socioeconomic
status, genetics, religion etc.- No mention of Christianity (at one time there was talk of
acknoledging Christianity's heritage to Europe; some sensible person
must have taken a closer look at just what that heritage was ;) )- Employment of children banned
- Reproductive cloning, eugenics (including "selection of persons"; ban on gender selection?), organ sale banned
- Right to strike and consultation guaranteed
- Guaranteed maternal and paternal leave
- Right to social housing and welfare
- Right of access to preventive health care
- Environmental and consumer protection standards must be kept high
- Common foreign policy and vague mutterings about common defense
- Some mysterious amendments to the Atomic Energy treaty
So basically, nothing too surprising, and nothing out of line with what
the EU does anything. I'll probably vote yes, if it ever comes to a
vote after the French rejection.
-
I was going to vote no, but after having a talk to some people about it I'll vote yes.
It will probably be better in the long run for everybody.
Drak
-
@rsynnott said:
Hmm, has anyone actually READ the constitution? It's quite interesting.
No, not entrirely, but thanks for your link I can now say I have at least skimmed it thru [:D]
A few interesting points:
- Torture and "inhuman or degrading treatment" are banned, completely (yay!)
- Death penalty banned
- Forced labour bannedIs there any EU member state that has not banned these in their national laws??
<FONT face=TimesNewRoman,Bold>
- Right to strike and consultation guaranteed
- Guaranteed maternal and paternal leave
- Right to social housing and welfare"Article II-51: Field of application" seems to limit these (and rest of the rights) to EU laws and institutions, giving member states chance to limit these. You are guaranteed maternal leave, but the length of it is subject to country where you happen to be working.
</FONT>So basically, nothing too surprising, and nothing out of line with what the EU does anything. I'll probably vote yes, if it ever comes to a vote after the French rejection.
I feel it's a step toward "United States Of Europe", it makes for a new EU from the previous and gives it more power over member states than before. Article 15's text sounds like Union can set whatever foreign and security policies the majority wants and minority states just have to accept it (.."<FONT face=TimesNewRoman>They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union’s interests or likely to impair its effectiveness.").
</FONT>If we have the chance to vote on this (at the moment it seems that Finnish goverment makes the decision...) I not sure whether I would vote yes or no. <FONT face=TimesNewRoman,Bold>
</FONT>
-
@rsynnott said:
I'm inclined to be in favour of it mostly
because Ireland tends to lag the rest of the EU a bit, and resists
putting things into practice heavily. We only formally legalised
homosexuality in 1992 after an EU court order a few years before, our
health service is a shambles, we don't comply with EU water polution
directives and so on. A stronger Europe will hopefully keep our
government in line.
Well, I guess that for Ireland, this generic constitution would be an
improvement. But for other countries like e.g. the Netherlands, the
constitution might just be a very limiting factor. For example, here in
the Netherlands we are quite open about sex and about mild,
recreational drug abuse. A more generic constitution could actually end
this open character of my country. Also, in Europe, the Netherlands is
a very strong economical power, yet in the number of people we are
quite small. But the amount of control that we have isn't based on our
economical value yet on the number of people here, thus in the big
economical picture, the Netherlands would lose a lot of influence.
Also, in recent events it became clear that the Dutch Guilder had an
exchange rate to the Euro which wasn't completely correct. Apparantly
many companies lost a lot of money simply because the Guilder was sold
for too little. And of course the Netherlands is paying a large amount
of cash to the EU yet it doesn't receive much back in return.
Basically, we have lost lots of money to the EU and continue to lose
money if we don't do anything about it. The EU is bleeding the Dutch
economy dry... And what for? For some corrupt Italian government or
some near-third-world East-European countries? Sure, we're willing to
give our share, but give us something valuable in return too!
As it seems now, we would sooner or later become powerless within the
EU, only good enough to open our wallets and donate it to the
bottomless pits all over the EU.
-
@Katja said:
And of course the Netherlands is paying a large amount
of cash to the EU yet it doesn't receive much back in return.
Basically, we have lost lots of money to the EU and continue to lose
money if we don't do anything about it. The EU is bleeding the Dutch
economy dry... And what for? For some corrupt Italian government or
some near-third-world East-European countries? Sure, we're willing to
give our share, but give us something valuable in return too!
As it seems now, we would sooner or later become powerless within the
EU, only good enough to open our wallets and donate it to the
bottomless pits all over the EU.
This is one way to look at it. However, without EU trade concessions,
the Netherlands would be in all kinds of trouble, almost certainly. And
in a few decades, those near-third-world Eastern European countries
will be feeding money back into Europe as well. Of course, by then, the
definition of Europe may include random other continents :D I suppose
it's easier for Ireland to live with paying the money, 'cause we were a
net recipitent until quite recently.
The drugs aren't mentioned, and I'd suspect they'd fall under the
country's right to self-determination bit. There was talk tho about
banning bestiality porn or something recently, wasn't there?
Hmm, I wonder will the common defense policy preclude another Iraq
invasion thingy, where two countries got involved and the rest avoided
it?
File:Death Penalty World Map.png - Wikipedia
File:Bmi30chart.png - Wikipedia