 Login
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes:
NavigationThe World
ColumnsPaul Rogers Li Datong Fred Halliday Mary Kaldor Daniele Archibugi |
 |
Europe is hopelessly backward.Posts: Joined: 2005-11-28
Taking a lesson from other posters here, I am just going to dig up articles critical of Europe and start a thread on them. This is of course counter-productive and vindictive, but that never stops you guys from posting garbage about America, and if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/21/french.racists.reut/
Submitted on Wed, 2006-03-22 17:21
 Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
American Power and the World would be the incorrect place to post this. I'm sure the moderators can direct you to the appropriate section, mon garcon.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
Why don't you cut and paste it over to the "European Power and the World" forum, genius.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
Hmmm...
Taking a lesson from other posters here, I am just going to dig up articles critical of Europe and start a thread on them. This is of course counter-productive and vindictive, but that never stops you guys from posting garbage about America, and if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Seems like the US are doing that about Iran at the moment in order to successfully villify them and create the pretext for an invasion. Prior to that it was Iraq getting the bad press.
At least in this forum we are venting our spleens without causing physical and infrastructural damage and preventing you from having your breakfast in peace, Jay, or killing your loved ones.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
Jay,
I agree, some of us are being overly negative.
Unfortunately, though this is a forum titled 'American power and the world' and at present we are in the throes of learning just how badly that power has been exerted and managed in Iraq. The extent of incompetence is unbelievable both for the sake of Iraqis and for the sake of the US and the rest of the planet.
For an outline of mistakes the US has made in Iraq go to:
http://usmistakes.blogspot.com/
The US is a great place and I am sure that we will get over our negativity. Just give us time.
Thanks
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
New Zeal,
I don't think the US being a great place helps those countries it is projecting its power to.
Rather, unfortunate victims most fervently wish the Americans would stay at home, put their feet up and enjoy their wonderful standard of living, thought-provoking cinema, science fiction serials and Jack Daniels.
Or perhaps just ask nicely, if people would like a wonderful standard of living, thought-provoking cinema, science fiction serials and Jack Daniels.
Take me. I like all of the above.
I would not like invasion, destruction of my country's heritage (museums etc.) power cuts, water contamination, mass unemployment, abitrary detention, curfew, torture, you know, stuff like that.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
alan.petersen,
["I could have used your help over on the Team America 4, Rest of the World 170 thread".]
yes, it would have made a difference. Team America 4 plus one, two hundred and eighty millionth. Rest of the World 170.
I hope my arithmetic is correct. (I am assuming there are about two hundred and eighty million Americans.)
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
hi jay,
welcome back. i have to say, i briefly considered starting a thread on all the things i appreciate about america, from jazz, hiphop, mlk and the internet onwards. but then i went over to the 'what about faith' forum instead because it was easier.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
Jay,
Good to see you back buddy. How was New Orleans during Mardi Gras?
I could have used your help over on the Team America 4, Rest of the World 170 thread.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
alan,
Help? What for? That was a haappycrappy thread, just like this one.
Europe is hopelessly backward compared to what? The bayou?
Furthermore, I would doubt jay would be supporting the non-sense you posted in that thread anyhow.
[You see...we really are arrogant. You don't have to worry about alienating us. You can call us any name you want. You can criticize us in any manner you see fit. We don't give a happycrap.] ahole.peterson
Now, the question is, can you help jay prove that Europe is hopelessly backward?
Jay gives a happycrap
You're right, Brendan, Jay and Alan are poles apart.
The fact that Jay started this thread shows that he DOES give a happycrap.
Jay's a good bloke. I'd have a beer with him any day.
Re: Jay gives a happycrap
"ahole.peterson" Ha, ha, ha. Not bad, Brenda.
But, for the life of me, I can't understand why I should give the tiniest little happycrap about the opinions of people who believe Charlie Sheen has inside information regarding the true perpetrators of 911. Until people stop grasping at straws to criticize every aspect of the United States, and use a little balance in their diatribes, I shall continue to ignore their meaningless rants as I pull the lever of my choice, come election day.
Re: Alan Peterson gives a happycrap
Oh, and Alan seems to give a happycrap too, otherwise he wouldn't be here.
Re: Alan Peterson gives a happycrap
I must admit, I have been giving a crap all afternoon today, and as far as I can tell so far, I have a ways to go before it ends. But, it is only the preparatory flushing for my colonoscopy tomorrow morning. And...trust me...ain't nothing "happy" about it.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
Whether Europe is forward or backward, I am not pretty sure, but Europe does think that whatever it thinks is right.Or, it cannot think wrong.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
sounds more like U.S. to me.....
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
"Europe" can't make up its mind on anything. What with it being a diverse and fractured continent, rather than a unified country.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
CC,
I appreciate the thoughts. All went well. Some polyps removed, but I won't know the lab results for a couple days. The old moniker I used on the other site was just to throw the dogs off the scent. It was just a silly label that had little to do with my beliefs.
OK, back to business. CC, I pretty much quit going to the old site you mentioned because of the inordinate number of morons. This place is better, but still not perfect. This place is not populated with the complete, slobbering, rabid, fanatical, "kill all westerners and exterminate the zionist jewry" crowd, but there is still a significant number of witless wonders.
Case in point: Someone (and I am not going to go back to see who) makes the statement that Charlie Sheen disputes the official version of 9/11. And then a couple jump in with the silly, "there were no evidence of a plane in the Pentagon attack" tripe. "GWB was in on it, he knew, he may have even planned it and conducted it to have an excuse to invade oil rich countries." Come on people. Please show me you are, at least vaguely, familiar with critical thinking. Try this:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, no plane hit the Pentagon. It was a bomb, planted by GWB's men in black suits. (It would have to have been an inside job, since those jarheads at the front gates would have taken a dim view of truckloads of C4 brought inside the building by a bucket brigade of young Arab men) A bomb in the Pentagon, exploding at roughly the same time as the WTC attacks would require prior knowledge for both attacks, to coordinate timing. If GWB was in on one, he was in on both.
If the Pentagon was a bomb, rather than a plane, there are a number of questions that could be asked:
1. What happened to the plane and passengers listed as missing in the Pentagon attack? (Maybe they were all taken to a hanger at Area 51)
2. Is there actually a missing plane, or did GWB make up a fictitious plane and passenger list?
3. If it was a fictitious passenger list, is there a way to look up names of the missing, and prove they are still alive, or never really existed in the first place?
4. If there was a plane, and a hundred or so people died, there should be lots of families and loved ones who could be interviewed to confirm or deny the losses, correct? (I mean, if you prove they are all still alive, but in a GWB witness protection program, you just need to find one or two of them to prove fraud)
5. Is the crater in Pennsylvania also planeless, bomb created, and passengerless?
6. If there was no plane in the Pentagon attack, and the passenger list of a missing plane was fictitious, were the fake passengers just made up, or did they use identities from people who were already dead? Did they make up fake drivers licenses, social security cards, and checking accounts for all the fake passengers?
7. If it was a grand GWB conspiracy, conducted by men in black suits, is there not enough easily obtainable information for some young New York Post reporter, with visions of Woodward and Bernstein and the Pulitzer Prize dancing in his head, to prove the non-existence of the phantom Pentagon plane?
8. Finally, how many witless wonders, incapable of critical thinking, does it take to keep an "aliens built the pyramids" conspiracy theory alive? Or a "no plane hit the Pentagon" laugher?
I appreciate that this place is quite a few notches above the retards I used to make fun of. I understand there is a higher level of education and intelligence here. But, please...conspiracy theories are for morons. Just because there are Jewish doctors, the zionist conspiracy is not implanting mind control devices in newborns. GWB did not plan and carry out 9/11 just because there was no video rolling at the Pentagon.
The other reason I left the other place was a conclusion that I was completely wasting my time with rabid fanatics. I honestly think there are many common beliefs, values, and aspirations, amongst the posters here (excluding Lendman) which we should be able to debate constructively. I do want to know what others think. (Unlike most Americans, I do, occasionally, give a happycrap) I won't always agree, and half the time, I will ignore the witless wonders, because of my American arrogance and apathy combined.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
New Zeal,
["If the next president doesn't want to make it part of my business who the leader of the US is, then all he/she has to do is to avoid declaring him/herself leader of the free world".]
You have hit the nail exactly upon its head. I for one, do not want their 'leadership' and I think that there are far better models of democracy than the US displays.
Problem is that they don't seem to get either point.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
If you think Bush is the first President to think of himself as "leader of the free world" simply because he was elected President of the United Staes, you are incorrect. If you think the United States intentionally strove to become the "leader of the free world" you are mistaken. The United States became the leader of the free world through default after World War II. We did not ask for it, we were simply the only nation powerful enough to stand in opposition to the USSR and China. Bush will not be the last President to be considered the leader of the free world. It comes with the job, whether you approve of his actions or not. Sorry. I guess it's kinda like becoming Prince of Wales, just because you happened to be first born in the House of Windsor. The kid don't hafta ask for the title, he just sorta gets it.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
(Building on Alan's post)
...and another thing. Bush was elected to be the leader of America. It was Bin Laden that unilaterally elected him as the leader of the war on terror. This is a point that is usually lost on foreigners.
America was perfectly happy building a better country, but now we are building a better world--one in our own image, like God did with man.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
alan.petersen,
["We did not ask for it, we were simply the only nation powerful enough to stand in opposition to the USSR and China".]
Not true. In facing the Soviet Union, the US had a 'coalition of the willing', which was called NATO. The original twelve members in 1949 were the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg. In 1952, Greece and Turkey joined. West Germany was admitted in 1955 and in 1982 Spain became the sixteenth member.
All the members contributed men and materials to NATO and both Britain and France had independent nuclear deterrents. Germany had an army of several hundred thousand men throughout most of he Cold War and France, Italy and Britain between them could muster several hundred thousand troops.
While it is true that the US was the biggest contributor, it is distorting historical fact to say that “we were simply the only nation powerful enough to stand in opposition to the USSR and China”. Incidentally, China was not a threat to Europe and probably not the US either in the time of the Cold War, which was principally waged against the Soviet Union.
What happened in Vietnam was between the Americans and the Vietnamese with the Chinese as onlookers.The only time that the US confronted China was in Korea and there again the US had a 'coaltion of the willing' in UN hats.
Message was edited by: brolly3
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
New Zeal,
Could this be why the US has the highest imprisonment rate of any country in the world?
No.
Brolly,
I will revise my statements slightly and agree. There was more than just the U.S. standing up against the USSR. You are correct. Although, without the U.S., NATO would have not been much of a hinderance to Russia (IMHO).
I agree also that China was not a threat to Europe. But to say they were not a threat to western allies is incorrect. As you pointed out, they were deeply involved in Korea, sending more then their fair share of on-the-ground foot soldiers. They were also a threat to other western interests and allies in S.E. Asia.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
Sorry, Alan
I was being facetious. We, in NZ are up there with the US in terms of imprisonment rates.
You are, however sounding a bit like some of the mullahs who spout that the Qur'an is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Do you really think that half a dozen blokes drunk with the victory of kicking King George up the butt got it right the first time?
This is not the "clash of civilizations" we are experiencing globally at the moment, this is the clash of the Qur'an vs the American Constitution!! The latter is probably only marginally less out of date than the former, and this thread had the gall to call itself "Europe is hopelessly backward".
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
New Zeal,
Ya got me. You're right. I revere the United States Constitution. Every year, I have to go through a Constitutional Law update, as part of my law enforcement work. It would be a whole lot easier on me if I could beat a confession out of someone. But, as a caring, feeling, thinking human being, I understand the values of a document that dictates behaviors, rather than a man. Do you think Americans take the vows to defend and uphold the document lightly? I assure you, they don't. I don't mind if it is amended. Hell, I even supported the ERA for years, and I doubt it will ever pass. But there has to be some unmistakable, overriding, no-figgin-doubt reason to amend it. And the Electoral College is not the right casue to get behind.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
We don't have a Constitution and our police are not required to read 'rights' before arresting them. They just get locked up (if necessary) and put on trial. They do have to be told what they are being arrested for!!
Sometimes it is a problem with us not having a Constitution, but we get by perfectly well without. As with everything there are advantages and disadvantages. With the population of the US and the complexity to the different political systems I can imagine it being very hard to change it.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
Maybe it is just the systems you grow up with, feel comfortable with, and get used to...but for the life of me, I cannot imagine living under a government which does not spell out, IN WRITING, what the rules are, what rights they cannot take from you, what protections you have from the powerfull. A document that intentionally splits power into small enough pieces to stave off thugs. How do you know for certain the rules won't change right in the middle of everything? How do you know for sure you won't work your whole life toward some goal, acquire property or whatever, and not have it jerked out from under your feet because someone, or some group, changed the rules on a whim? Do you really trust your government that much? Have we not taught you anything?
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
alan.peterson,
I said, "So one might say, similarly, the United States has not found satisfactory mechanisms to uphold many of the noble commandments the Constitution contains."
You asked, "I guess I miss your point. What exactly are you trying to say here?"
I believe from my sparse knowledge of the Patriot Act that it contravenes specific articles of the American Constitution.
So that whether or not the document is itself amended, legislation has been made which indeed cancels some of it out. I am intrigued that you have considered knowledge of the US Constitution. Do you believe the Patriot Act, (in concept if you are not familiar with the exact ins and outs) to be a bill which defies elements of the Constitution?
You later posted "I cannot imagine living under a government which does not spell out, IN WRITING, what the rules are, what rights they cannot take from you, what protections you have from the powerful."
I notice that when GWB recently re-authorised the Patriot Act, he actually put in an "addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers." here and here
So it seems not only can a bill be sworn in which it appears to me to be unconstitutional, but specific measures that were included to avoid unconstitutional use of it can be ignored, with a simply sweeping note added by the President (like a get out of jail free card - but missing out jail all together).
Any thoughts on this?
p.s. jayfromtexas I deduce from your sulky swipe at me that you are still smarting from my anal/banal sum-up of your input, which was made purely for humurous purposes and was not meant to send you into deep reflection and depression. However, in case you are wondering your last contribution on this thread definitely crossed over into banal without the b.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
Maz,
If the Patriot Act violates the Constitution, by granting powers to the Executive Branch exceeding those it is entitled to, all someone has to do is challenge it in court. This is another little benefit of the Constitution (and is a gift handed down to us through the brilliance of John Marshall in Marbury v Madison). I don't know if aspects of the Patriot Act violate the Constitution. There may be aspects. If there are, anyone with standing (which would include almost every citizen in the country) could take it to court. There is nothing to stop them. I am sure if anyone thought they could make a case, the ACLU would be happy to back them with lawyers and funding. Since no one has challenged the Patriot Act yet (at least not to any significant degree) most law experts apparently see difficulties in a challenge. Remember, the Congress can pretty much pass any law they want to, and the President can sign it. They could pass a law to shoot, on sight, anyone caught breathing air. But the courts can nullify virtually any act of Congress. All you have to do is challenge it and get the courts to agree it violates the Constitution. But, it has to be challenged.
I do not fear the possibility of a President, or Congress, passing laws which take away my Constitutional rights, because this country graduates too many lawyers for our own good, and a ton of them are out there looking for their own Marbury v Madison. I trust the judicial far more than I trust the legislative or executive branches.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
Alan and Maz
From what I can see of the above is that the Patriotic Act could be seen as an amendment of the Constitution if it changes stuff in it. This is the same thing that applies to any legislative process. Once a precedent is set (in the first court case) then other cases follow suit.
I think it is good to be able to change the constitution. It should be a living document, and I am sure that Alan, you would agree, no changes should be done lightly. However that usually means more lawyers!!
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
Except, if it changes stuff in the Constitution, the Supreme Court can, and should, nullify it. Only with a 2/3 vote in Congress and approval on ballots in 3/4 of the states can the Constitution be ammended. I have no problem with amendments that go through the process. I do have a problem with a President attempting to circumvent the Constitution through Executive Orders, or ramrodding unconstitutional legislation through Congress. But, preventing that is the purpose, and duty, of the Supreme Court.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
We have lots of Acts of Parliament which are constantly being amended through normal day to day legislative process. So our law is based on legislative amendment and judicial precedence and not some defining document although Westminster is often quoted.
Except, if it changes stuff in the Constitution, the Supreme Court can, and should, nullify it.
If the Supreme Court decides that what applied in 1777 doesn't necessarily apply today, then they can decide not to nullify it and thereby create a precedent.
No matter how clearly written, the Constitution (like the Qur'an) is open to interpretation. We have a similar problem with our Treaty of Waitangi (with the Maori) which we have to continually interpret and reinterpret in order to sort out our relationship with the indigenous people.
At the end of the day as the Constitution fades into the mists of history, you too, will end up with legislation by way of legislative amendment and legal precedence.
Message was edited by: New Zeal
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
Vague wording may be interpreted in differing ways by different incarnations of the Supreme Court. But where the wording is clear and distinct, it will not matter how many times Congress passes the same law, or how long it has been on the books. If someone challenges it, if the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, out the window it goes. For instance, in the Bill of Rights, the wording "a well regulated militia..." can be interpreted in different ways. Does it mean an organized state military, like the Tennessee National Guard, or does is mean every able bodied man over the age of 18 (as it meant in the 1770s)? Regardless of the courts interpretation, I assure you, the Bill of Rights is here to stay. The wording in that same sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is unambiguous. No matter what laws Congress passes, no matter how long they are on the books, no matter how many states pass similar legislation, if the Supreme Court views it as unconstitutional, every one of them is nullified.
I can give you a specific, recent example. Interstate commerce cannot be infringed. There had been many state laws, on the books for decades, which prevented the interstate sale and shipment of wine through the mail (or UPS or FedX). The state's reasoning was they would lose tax money and underage kids could buy alchohol illegally. The internet comes along and makes it easy to buy and sell wine across state lines and have it shipped. The Founding Fathers never anticipated the internet. Someone took it to the Supreme Court a little over a year ago, and a couple weeks after the court threw out every state prohibition against it, I got my first two bottles of Dow's 1994 Vintage Port shipped from California.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
So do you think this is ALWAYS a good thing that certain laws can't be changed?
I'm sure the gun law keeps the US homicide rate up there at the top (guns were fine in 1777, but 2006?).
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
I think there are certain laws that transcend time and should apply to all. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and...yes...the right to keep and bear arms. But, you must understand, I am one of those gun guys. My job depends on them, and I believe in the right of the citizenry to ensure their welfare, and protect themselves from abusive governments, through gun ownership. If I did not have 200,000 guys in Tennessee with guns, I could not get the 150,000 deer killed every year that I need to. But, more important to me than that is my right to protect my family and myself. I cannot foresee a time when the police can respond to a home break in faster than a man can get to his nightstand next to his bed.
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
We had the weird incident of a farmer (they can have guns with a license) who shot at a couple of people who were stealing his 4-wheeler bike. he injured one of them and ended up being charged for assault. The whole neighbourhood erupted in protest, because it was remote and police would take hours to get there. The case went to court nevertheless and the farmer was let off, but not without serious court costs.
I am also aware that Canada has similar gun laws to US, but something in the Canadian psyche limits them from being used to solve domestic problems.
Do you leave your front door unlocked while you are in the house, assuming you are not in an apartment?
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
It stays locked. Why?
Re: Europe is hopelessly backward.
I guess it reflects on how safe we are, or perceive ourselves to be.
I live in a suburb of 10,000 houses with sections ranging in size from 4000 sq ft to 15,000 sq ft. I seldom have the front door locked during the day, and at night I might have the front door locked but most of the others are usually unlocked (6 doors).
Anyway I don't want to get into a protracted discussion about whether or not guns make you feel safer. I have gained a lot about the potential for electoral reform in the US from this thread. It remains to be seen what happens in the US over the last two years of Bush's presidency and if there are any big changes. I think it would be exciting for you to embrace some changes and get your electoral participation up.
Maybe you should give politics another go yourself.
|
|
