time for some european politics

[Gurnsey]

*grins*

So, if I have this straight, you actually do have a separation of the executive and ceremonial jobs.  You just don't have them written in the Constitution (or any other law, for that matter?).    And, the selection of them is a package deal when you elect the President.  You are also electing his wife for the ceremonial tasks.  Two workers for the price of one, eh?  ;)

I know that is a vast simplification.  It just tickles me nonetheless.  :P
[right][snapback]79359[/snapback][/right]

The really ticklish question here is, if we elect a female president, will her husband still be the 'First Lady'? :o

[Doc]

The lady is... A tramp!!!

Bill Clinton as First Tramp. Er, Lady.

Crap, why did you have to bring that up. :wacko:

[Occhidiangela]

*grins*

So, if I have this straight, you actually do have a separation of the executive and ceremonial jobs.   You just don't have them written in the Constitution (or any other law, for that matter?).    And, the selection of them is a package deal when you elect the President.   You are also electing his wife for the ceremonial tasks.   Two workers for the price of one, eh?   ;)

I know that is a vast simplification.   It just tickles me nonetheless.   :P
[right][snapback]79359[/snapback][/right]

You seem to also, to carry this nonsense further down the silly street, have a problem with cabinet officers making visits of state. They aren't elected, and they do that stuff all the time.

Wondering if there is a point to this, other than GWB is not a glib public speaker. Not news.

Occhi

[eppie]

The man that goes out and spends 16 hours of his day breaking his back so that his wife and children have a comfortable life is a far better man than the fat dumbass sitting in their seat of power and basking in all their assumed glory. It is the workers that make a nation great. Not the doofus sitting there in the public eye taking all the credit. I don't mean to sound like a socialist either, but credit where credit is due. A truly noble spirit is the one that puts in a few extra hours into his work week to buy his kid a new bicycle for their birthday. Or the man that does the thankless job picking up litter off of the side of the highway. Not because he has to, but because he wants to. The littlest of men deserve the most credit. They do the most work. It is on their backs that a nation is either made or broken.

[right][snapback]79277[/snapback][/right]

Doc this is exactly what socialism is. I know for most americans it is a bad word, mainly because they don't understand what it means.

It does not mean "kill the rich" , it just means that having more money doesn't make you a good person. A person that picks up litter is just as important as any other one, and deserves to be able to make a living out of that job. The same for somebody that works at Mcdonalds. We need people like that so we should also pay them enough to don't have to take two jobs to support their family. To make sure they are also able to send their kids to school, and also see them after work.
40 hours of work should be enough.
The american dream is a fairy tale told by the rich, in no society it is possible to all be rich. So even if everybody will kill to be succesful there will be poor people.
Socialism doesn't mean companies cannot make a profit, it just means that the people that work there are able to have a normal salary, and that their kids have the same chances in life.

[ShadowHM]

Wondering if there is a point to this, other than GWB is not a glib public speaker.  Not news.

Occhi
[right][snapback]79444[/snapback][/right]

My sense of humour has to have a point? :blink:

[Doc]

Doc this is exactly what socialism is. I know for most americans it is a bad word, mainly because they don't understand what it means.

It does not mean "kill the rich" , it just means that having more money doesn't make you a good person. A person that picks up litter is just as important as any other one, and deserves to be able to make a living out of that job. The same for somebody that works at Mcdonalds. We need people like that so we should also pay them enough to don't have to take two jobs to support their family. To make sure they are also able to send their kids to school, and also see them after work.
40 hours of work should be enough.
The american dream is a fairy tale told by the rich, in no society it is possible to all be rich. So even if everybody will kill to be succesful there will be poor people.
Socialism doesn't mean companies cannot make a profit, it just means that the people that work there are able to have a normal salary, and that their kids have the same chances in life.
[right][snapback]79461[/snapback][/right]

Already well aware of that, thanks :P See comments elsewhere in thread where I mention the proper mix of socialism and democracy. As a personal aside, I have spend most of my adult life working to make sure everybody gets their fair share and that everybody has a shot of doing something.

<--- Read the Communist Manifesto. Was in Greensboro North Carolina in 1979 in the month of November. I took a couple of bullets on that horrible day for the cause I believe in. Don't want to talk about it. I will only say that Neo-Nazi Skinheads and Klansman can go suck , er, wait, if I finish that it will get me canned. Never mind.

Apparently I am still angry after all these years. Go figure.

[Occhidiangela]

Already well aware of that, thanks :P See comments elsewhere in thread where I mention the proper mix of socialism and democracy. As a personal aside, I have spend most of my adult life working to make sure everybody gets their fair share and that everybody has a shot of doing something.

<--- Read the Communist Manifesto. Was in Greensboro North Carolina in 1979 in the month of November. I took a couple of bullets on that horrible day for the cause I believe in. Don't want to talk about it. I will only say that Neo-Nazi Skinheads and Klansman can go suck , er, wait, if I finish that it will get me canned. Never mind.

Apparently I am still angry after all these years. Go figure.
[right][snapback]79476[/snapback][/right]

??

You believe in American Communisn? *smoke comes out of ears as gears grind*

I am missing something here.

[eppie]

??

You believe in American Communisn?  *smoke comes out of ears as gears grind*

I am missing something here.
[right][snapback]79478[/snapback][/right]

Explain please for a non-american?


Anyway, it seems that europe wants to reconsider the constitution now.........this remains very interesting.

After 62 % of the dutch voted against, people start freaking out.
The Lega wants to bring back the lire in Italy, and also in holland and germany some people want their old currency back......like that is going to help.

edited

[Doc]

??

You believe in American Communisn?&nbsp; *smoke comes out of ears as gears grind*

I am missing something here.
[right][snapback]79478[/snapback][/right]

Short answer, no.

But I do believe strongly in unions, more workers rights, and a better outlook for those workers. At the time, that outlet was the best means available to make those opinions known. Union is a dirty word here in the South. One you had better not ever say out loud in public. A lot of people, at that time, desperate people with a lot on the line, supported this cause simply because there was no other outlet for them to turn to. And many of these were red blooded American workers that hated the idea of "commies" and "red bastids." Occhi, you get hungry enough, you get poor enough, you get desperate enough, and you too, will follow anybody offering to help you get more bread on the table. It's easy to demonise folk that go to these measures, getting in bed with the enemy so to speak, until it's you standing in the breadlines. There were a lot of scary ideas being thrown around at this time. Job safety. Industrial accidents were at an all time high... People were getting chewed up in heavy machinery, losing arms, legs, their lives, and they wanted safer working conditions as well as compensation for being chewed up on the job. Workers threatened strikes, demands for better hours and workers rights, better health care, better pay to keep up with the rising cost of living, and the very idea of workers going on strike in mass with all manner of jobs in different fields caused many of the Overlords to crap their britches... The idea of the workers standing up and resisting all the current unfair (And unAmerican I might add) practices sent the folks living at the top of the hill into a tizzy. And those folks up there living off of the broken backs of others panicked, and they hired themselves an army of Neo-Nazi Skinheads and Klansmen to go in and bust skulls. Even worse, these same folks, when the killers went on trial in 1980, used their money and wealth, and got their hired killers out of the hot seat. Some of the people killed and injured that God awful horrible day were not communists at all, nor did they believe in American Communism. They were just average joes that where hungry, tired, poor, and were willing to risk everything just to try and get some hope. And they found a political outlet that had just enough of a voice to offer some of that most precious commodity. Can you fault them? When you reach that sort of boiling point, there is no middle ground. There are only extremists on both sides. The dominating force on both ends is where you wind up if you get involved. And everything usually spirals out of control because there is to much weight on both ends and nothing in the middle to stablize.

I do not believe that it is right that the people who do the most work get paid the least, and the people doing the least work get paid the most. IE, executives that spend their whole days at lunch and at the golf course, and get a six figure income for doing that, while the workers slave away in some hellish factory.

I believe in free trade and an open ended economic system. I just think that with all this wealth there should be more done to protect the source of this wealth. After all, you don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Judge me as you will. History has. I am to damned old to care at this point. I watched people die that day. Gunned down and beaten to death. All I can remember is the blood... There was so much of it. There is news footage of that day... Some of the violence was caught on camera. Infact, you can even see me on film. It was madness, and just thinking about it makes me want a stiff drink, which is something I really don't need. It still hurts all these years later. I don't give a damn. I just want to live out whatever life I have left peaceful and quiet like, with my wife, and my animals. And I want those memories to fade away and stop hurting so much. I wish I could go to sleep and not hear all the screams that I hear, not just from this one incident, but from all of them. I wish I could just sleep period. I am always awake. Every time I close my damn eyes all the events of my life choose that moment to replay themselves.

I don't know what I believe in any more to be honest. I don't know how to answer your question my friend.

[Guest]

One example (my main reason to vote NO although I'm in favour of a european constitution):
The articles about animal rights and agriculture are written in such a way that we go a huge step back. From now on bioindustry is a thing supported by the constitution, and as long if it is a "tradition" or cultural heritage, people can do what they want with animals. (so in no particular order: bull fighting in Spain, force feeding geese in France, dancing bears in the east, shooting of birds on Malta, fox hunting in brittain, and everything you can invent yourself). These things were in the countries still allowed but a lot of work is done to try to end these things, once it is in a constitution, this is gonna be very hard.


[right][snapback]79180[/snapback][/right]

Its not a matter if "hard" its a matter of you really dont agree on this stuff and probably shouldnt be bound together concerning it.

[eppie]

Its not a matter if "hard" its a matter of you really dont agree on this stuff and probably shouldnt be bound together concerning it.
[right][snapback]79501[/snapback][/right]

Although I mentioned some examples of countries, also in my own country there are enough people who think in that way. And in other countries people can disagree with these malpractices. It is not a reason to not favour a united europe.......

[Occhidiangela]

It is not a reason to not favour a united europe.......
[right][snapback]79520[/snapback][/right]

400+ pages of bureaucratese. Having seen similar wording patterns all over NATO documents for a few years, I recognize the hands that wrote it.

eppie, it is small wonder the Dutch voters shook their heads.

What next?

Occhi

[Brother Laz]

The Belgian gov't is currently attempting to block the referendum. So much for democracy? :(

[Occhidiangela]

For someone who likes to tell all non USA people to not coment or have opinion on US issues and stay out of such threads, like their elections and how it works, it seems strange that the very same person likes to completely ignore his own views and start telling and disucssing such "out of US" things. Ah well, I guess someone doesn't like to play by their own rules.....
PS! We still need to find something Swedish.....
[right][snapback]79335[/snapback][/right]

If you don't care for my analysis, fine, point out the holes. Little opinion offered, analysis and interest based in personal experience. And eppie solicited opinions. I obliged.

Why do I care? I worked neck and neck with allegedly "United Europeans" for 3 straight years. I lived 9 years of my life in Europe . . . and have friends there. :unsure: ?

If "Europe" can ever unite enough to stop sucking the milk from the American security nipple, my nation's GDP share for defense can decrease. That is a good thing, for me, but is contingent upon a "United Europe" pulling its head out on collective security.

If the leadership remains the folks who came up with that 450+ pages, not likely but still possible.

My analysis of the EU Constitution: it is structurally more Federalistic than ours. That is not opnions, that is analysis of what was written. Yes, I read the whole goddamned thing. :o I had my fill of bureaucratic crap like that in NATO, but I guess nostalgia is a powerful force.

I will second your notion, Jarulf, and second your motion that for flavor at least, a bit more Stockholm and a bit less Brussels would probably please more palates across the EU.

At least, that is my guess.

Maybe "Europeans" are so used to the McGovernment from Brussels that their political taste buds have rotted, like American taste buds may have on McDonald's. But since the EU is only a part of the play, and the real government is at home in most respects, my other guess is that the taste buds are still able to discern swill from good goulash.

For the sake of my friends in Europe, I sincerely hope so.

PS: eppie asked for opinions, and I obliged. I did NOT start this thread. Save your hypocrisy crack for another time, I am sure one will arise. :blush:

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

The Belgian gov't is currently attempting to block the referendum. So much for democracy? :(
[right][snapback]80033[/snapback][/right]

How familiar are you with the Belgian Constitution? It may be there in black and white that they can do that.

Occhi

[Kylearan]

Hi,

If "Europe" can ever unite enough to stop sucking the milk from the American security nipple, my nation's GDP share for defense can decrease.&nbsp; That is a good thing, for me

I think it would be a good thing for Europe too, all costs aside that would arise for us. But somehow I got the impression that the US wasn't so happy about European talk of creating a military of its own. Europe depending on the USA may cost you a lot of money, but also provides you with a lot of political influence which you don't seem to be too unhappy about. <_<

-Kylearan

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
I think it would be a good thing for Europe too, all costs aside that would arise for us. But somehow I got the impression that the US wasn't so happy about European talk of creating a military of its own. Europe depending on the USA may cost you a lot of money, but also provides you with a lot of political influence which you don't seem to be too unhappy about.  <_<

-Kylearan
[right][snapback]80216[/snapback][/right]

Good point.

As I see it, there are divergent schools of thought in America on that score. Some prefer that we force the issue, in a more isolationist move vis a vis Europe proper, that we pull out of Europe and make it a matter of "you deal with your problems, ciao!" The unrealistic part of that is the logistic support we have built in Europe over 50 years: warehouses, airfields, training facilities, hospitals, dockyard improvements. Those are all strategic logistics facilities that we can ill afford to do without in order to be able to act in the Eastern Med.

The other point of view is more internationalist, that the more engaged we are, the more places where we underwrite security agreements, the less likely there is to be a flare up. That requires a considerably larger military presence than we can at the moment afford, see my GDP comment, and it relies on both image and credibility. If someone believes that we shoot when "line X' is crossed, then deterrent security can work. (Article V of the NATO treaty is explicit in that regard.) If we behave more like the UN, and don't shoot no matter what line is crossed, we waste our money and men on such a deterrent posture.

The war in Iraq fits neither of those models, being an ambitious bit of preemption, the type of operation we normally only used in small, local (South and Latin American) countries previously. The way it looks now, the US is willing to sacrifice a lot more to shore up Israeli security than security in some other places. The Middle East's stability as seen through Washington's eyes is still bound to Israeli security. Credit AIP and other Jewish-Israeli based lobby groups for their efforts over the past 55 years. What could you do with 5 billion per year in aid and unrepaid loans?

I believe we should pull our troops out of Europe -- North of the Alps -- entirely, leaving small logistic detachments in a few places with local government agreements. We should stay, where the local governments still agree, in the Southern Region: that is where European Security and American Security now intersect.

As to Asia, that is a whole different ball game, and needs far more of our effort than Europe does: Asia is the future.

Americans who object to Europe as a whole being "stronger" are paternalists and, IMO, trying to treat Europe like an immature child. Europe is hardly that, and is not the tinder box it was in 1900. The EU has the power to act collectively with greater, positive effect than has been recently shown, if the political will grows to do so.

Occhi

[Doc]

Good point.

As I see it, there are divergent schools of thought in America on that score.&nbsp; Some prefer that we force the issue, in a more isolationist move vis a vis Europe proper, that we pull out of Europe and make it a matter of "you deal with your problems, ciao!"&nbsp; The unrealistic part of that is the logistic support we have built in Europe over 50 years: warehouses, airfields, training facilities, hospitals, dockyard improvements.&nbsp; Those are all strategic logistics facilities that we can ill afford to do without in order to be able to act in the Eastern Med.

The other point of view is more internationalist, that the more engaged we are, the more places where we underwrite security agreements, the less likely there is to be a flare up.&nbsp; That requires a considerably larger military presence than we can at the moment afford, see my GDP comment, and it relies on both image and credibility.&nbsp; If someone believes that we shoot when "line X' is crossed, then deterrent security can work.&nbsp; (Article V of the NATO treaty is explicit in that regard.)&nbsp; If we behave more like the UN, and don't shoot no matter what line is crossed, we waste our money and men on such a deterrent posture.&nbsp;

The war in Iraq fits neither of those models, being an ambitious bit of preemption, the type of operation we normally only used in small, local (South and Latin American) countries previously.&nbsp; The way it looks now, the US is willing to sacrifice a lot more to shore up Israeli security than security in some other places.&nbsp; The Middle East's stability as seen through Washington's eyes is still bound to Israeli security.&nbsp; Credit AIP and other Jewish-Israeli based lobby groups for their efforts over the past 55 years.&nbsp; What could you do with 5 billion per year in aid and unrepaid loans?

I believe we should pull our troops out of Europe -- North of the Alps -- entirely, leaving small logistic detachments in a few places with local government agreements.&nbsp; We should stay, where the local governments still agree, in the Southern Region: that is where European Security and American Security now intersect.

As to Asia, that is a whole different ball game, and needs far more of our effort than Europe does: Asia is the future.

Americans who object to Europe as a whole being "stronger" are paternalists and, IMO, trying to treat Europe like an immature child.&nbsp; Europe is hardly that, and is not the tinder box it was in 1900.&nbsp; The EU has the power to act collectively with greater, positive effect than has been recently shown, if the political will grows to do so.

Occhi
[right][snapback]80218[/snapback][/right]

That was remarkably insightful. Thank you. I have been combing through the news and you summed it up better then most other writers, who seem to choke on their own words.

[jahcs]

Americans who object to Europe as a whole being "stronger" are paternalists and, IMO, trying to treat Europe like an immature child.&nbsp; Europe is hardly that, and is not the tinder box it was in 1900.&nbsp; The EU has the power to act collectively with greater, positive effect than has been recently shown, if the political will grows to do so.
[right][snapback]80218[/snapback][/right]

The impression I get from most Europeans towards Americans is similar to the mindset when we entered WWI: "Yeah, sure we like you. Just drop off what we need in men and material and let us make all the decisions. You Yanks can't seem to ever get it right (read: do what we want)."
What I see from many Americans at this time toward Europe is "Fine, we don't need you, we'll just sit over here and act like the spoiled brats everybody says we are."

I see it demonstrated over and over. We pledge foriegn aid, it isn't enough. (Not to mention the fact that only government donations were counted for tsunami relief, not private donations by American citizens.) We pledge money to fight AIDS, that isn't good enough because we retained control of how it's spent and didn't just give it over to the powers that be.

Now I'll retreat to the safety of my Nomex firesuit and hope I don't get burned to badly in the flames.

[Occhidiangela]

The impression I get from most Europeans towards Americans is similar to the mindset when we entered WWI: "Yeah, sure we like you.  Just drop off what we need in men and material and let us make all the decisions.  You Yanks can't seem to ever get it right (read: do what we want)."
What I see from many Americans at this time toward Europe is "Fine, we don't need you, we'll just sit over here and act like the spoiled brats everybody says we are."

I see it demonstrated over and over.  We pledge foriegn aid, it isn't enough.  (Not to mention the fact that only government donations were counted for tsunami relief, not private donations by American citizens.)  We pledge money to fight AIDS, that isn't good enough because we retained control of how it's spent and didn't just give it over to the powers that be.

Now I'll retreat to the safety of my Nomex firesuit and hope I don't get burned to badly in the flames.
[right][snapback]80266[/snapback][/right]

If you want to understand what is behind it all, look at the secularist attacks for the last 200+ years, starting about 1789. That is where the antipathy for America's core has its roots, though that is just one strain of it. The post 1848 strain of anti Americanism is more pernicious. It is the fear of the peculiar American strain of the Scots-Irish legacy of the indomitable man as sovereign in himself, and willing to fight, bleed, and die to remain so. Some call it "Jacksonian" others things less charitable.

It scares the self important lying intellectual snobs of Europe, it scares the lying intellectual snobs of America, and it scares the insecure intellectuals who created Communism and its bastard children. It scares the lying, two faced scum who try to perpetrate the concept of PC: the so-called Frankfurt School.

So they attack it, try to work around it, undermine it, sabotage it, and always have done so. This is not new, as you pointed out. Not hardly.

What's new is the tools. It is information age warfare. Iraq is a diversion. The war's aim is to bind the individual to the chains of the lying intellectual class of self important meglomaniacs. What is gratifying is to see the voters of Europe wake up, and show some sparks of their own spirit.

War is something you fight to win, or you lose.

Occhi