Just out of curiosity, is the gun culture there that strong? I mean, I feel no reason to own a gun, as many Australians do . . . what are you going to do with it even if the government, say, takes away your right to assemble in public? You going to go outside and shoot every cop that tries to arrest you? It will in no way effect what the government wants to do. The government has several ways of enforcing it's will whether your armed or not. They have Police, Federal Marshall, Texas Rangers, the FBI, the ATF, State Troopers, the National Guard, the Armed Forces. . . the list is endless. If they get enough of the government on board to vote it through, your gun won't help you . . . Unless you want to plan and lead another revolution . . . Is the American solution to everything violence? If they infringe on your rights what do you plan to do with your guns?!
( My apologies if I'm coming off rude, I love a good debate, let's keep anything said in the politics thread, in the politics thread, Yea? )
I suppose gun culture is pretty strong in the US. It depends on where, of course. Some enjoy hunting, others target practice, and others still are just paranoid about intruders and thus keep a gun safe with, say, a shotgun. (Often considered the last-ditch home defense weapon of choice) Personally I quite enjoy target practice, it's a fun hobby ... like playing Baldur's Gate. Neither of these two hobbies make me a killer.
If the government ever does something truly despicable, let's keep in mind the police, federal marshal, etc. are all people, like us. They have a breaking point too, they have a point where they say enough is enough. If absolute worst comes to worst, all we have to worry about is the Department of Homeland Security actually taking up arms against citizens. Besides them, no civil warring is going to happen, not with the weapons and technology at large today. It's funny, the USA is often made fun of for practically worshipping our military (I agree it's a bit of overboard), but if there's one thing it guarantees, it's that the military isn't going to fire upon us even if we were to lead another revolution.
Armed citizens does not mean "we're going to have to USE our guns to keep the government in line." Armed citizens means that the government can and will actually fear us, to some SMALL extent, which is better than them having absolutely no fear at all. Guns are more symbolic than anything, because sane people don't open fire on random people, as you stated yourself. This symbol IS important because I can honestly say, the majority of our current government is a bunch of statists arguing over what they personally think is right, and trying to enforce their own ideas of right and wrong upon everyone else. Ergo: They don't give a shit about us. I'm not about to give up the one thing standing between me and them and potentially totalitarianism, if they really want it.
Now, one might say: Wow, you really don't trust your government do you? Of course I don't. When people are given a position of power, and they are making decisions that affect people that aren't in front of their face, it is human nature to care very little about the people below them. One might say: If you aren't going to trust your government, why should they trust you? Good point! They don't, and they never will. This is once again because of the veil between me and them, the veil of anonymity. Not true anonymity, but enough to make people, once again, by nature, not truly care.
This is good enough for me. I understand that humanity isn't perfectable, that we are inherently flawed in as many ways as we are good. Capitalism, our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence were formed upon the ideals that humanity is flawed, but to make do anyway. It only takes a little bit of history reading (anyone who does not take history to heart should honestly not be involved in politics, it's quite easy to learn from the mistakes of others; others who, like the rest of us, were actually trying to do good. Hindsight is 20/20) to understand that humanity has been repeating the same mistakes over and over, and we always will. Technology changes, times change, but humans are still motivated by the exact same things, and are still very much the same.
Searching for perfection in a massive body of people is a fool's errand. Once again all it takes is a little history reading, and you'll find that all the people who tried to perfect a society ended up killing massive amounts of the people they claimed to love and vowed to serve; whether through famine, war, sickness, or whatever else. The people in history that we look at and think "wow, they were truly evil," were all human. We are all capable of such atrocities, and often times the catastrophes were caused simply by a powerful person who was dead set that they had the right answer for everyone; they thought they had the majority's best interests at heart.
A free society, like the one we have in America that we are slowly chipping away at, allows the good to distinguish themselves from the bad. It allows them to live as they see fit, by their own set of moral standards and values. Both our Republican and Democratic parties claim to know what's best for everyone else, and quite frankly, they are both mistaken. How can I know what's best for you? That's just stupid, and incredibly disrespectful. You know what's best for you, maybe some really close friends and family who intimately know you do as well. Should I legislate you to fit my moral standards? No! On the flip-side, why shouldn't I be free to express my opinion? My morals? But there's a huge difference between me telling you what to do, and me forcing you to do.
Well said @Quartz Very well said! I like that. I do think there needs to be tighter control, I'm not sure what or how that is to be achieved but never the less. That is my opinion. I have some more things to discuss but not til after dinner. It's nice to find someone who can justify WHY. Not say "Cause the constitution says so, so I get my Remington 870." Far to many people hide behind that.
Humanity will never be perfect. But I believe the point of life is to try. To get as close as you can be, to learn and evolve, expand and self-improve and try and leave the world a slightly better place then what it was when we came into it. It's a lofty goal but even in some way I'd like to succeed!
I'm... Going to change the subject a little and point out something that hasn't yet been said on that Hobby Lobby decision. (And try to stay as far away from birth control as possible. You all know my opinion on that. I won't repeat myself.)
Let's recap: this decision gives privately owned businesses the ability to deny birth control contraception to their employees on the basis of it violating their religious rights.
Okay.
This decision only effects contraception. It does not include blood transfusions, pig-based medications, and anti-depressants.
Aaaaaand here in lies the problem:
Jehovah's Witness is a sect of Christianity that is against any blood-based medical procedures. (Link.) Most famously, this includes blood-transfusions, which are used to treat blood-borne diseases, or to simply replenish a person's blood cell count after a major surgery.
As some of you may know, devout Jewish and Islam people cannot have pig-based medications. Similarly, devout Hindus cannot have cow-based medications. Islam and Judaism prohibit the consumption of pig-products (food, medicine, etc.), while the Hindu faiths consider cows to be sacred. (Basically, they can use products from a living cow, but if the product was made at the expense of a cow's life, they will not take it. Medicine and beef are out.) Link.
The Church of Scientology is against the practice of anti-depressants. In short, they are most concerned with human spirituality, and how a person's spiritual existence is connected to God. They believe that an individual is a spirit, not a body with chemical make-up and genes, and this spiritual being goes through cycles of rehabilitation and salvation. Since anti-depressants, by definition, mess with your mental health, they could also be seen as screwing with a person's spiritual health. (Link.)
...
As stated, this bill only effects contraception.
But why can't a Jewish business owner express his religious freedom the same way the other (mostly Christian) religions can? Why does he have to pay for pig-based medications for his employees? His money is being unjustly taken from him in the form of taxes to pay for things beyond his control--to pay for the digestion of hundreds of pig-based medications.
Or, let's take a more extreme example: A Jehovah's Witness. One of her employees was caught in a car accident. He will die if he does not have a blood transfusion, as he has lost too much blood to survive on his own. However, her faith abhors medical practices involving blood. Why should she have to pay for her employee's blood transfusion? It is an infringement on her religious rights, isn't it? She doesn't want her well-earned money funding a medical practice she is so faithfully against.
And that's just two examples. If this bill were to truly grant companies religious freedom, then it has to be written for ALL religions in this country. The United States of America is a nation founded on free speech and religious equality. You are free to come here and practice whatever faith you want without being judged or persecuted by the government or any other authority figure. This is one of the greatest things that I take pride in as an American.
But this bill, as written right now, is not religious equality. It's religious favoritism, leaning mostly towards conservative Christians. Unless we extend this same honor of religious expression to the many other religions in this country, this bill is, in my humble opinion, unconstitutional.
...
So. Here we have: a can of worms.
That's what this is. One religious voice prevails over dozens more, and now you'll have more corporate entities vying for the same rights as Hobby Lobby. And if the Supreme Court is still sane on some level, more often than not, it'll have to tell the other faiths, "No. This cannot carry over to blood transfusions/anti-depressants/pork/bovine products." On what basis? You're going to deny the religious rights of any other faith that isn't a conservative Christian? Because the conservative Christian teachings on contraception are reasonable, but the Hindu refusals to fund cow medications are not? Where is the equality in that? Where is the freedom in that?
There is none. Only worms. It's a giant can of worms that the Supreme Court should have just left the fuck alone.
((If there's anyone of the above faiths who wants to correct me on anything, feel free to do so. I am no expert. But as it stands, it's 2:20 in the morning, and I want to go to bed. Discuss, and goodnight!))
Indeed @Nonnahswriter, by logic and legality these are completely equivalent to an employer refusing to fund contraception and even abortions, as with some medical conditions pregnancy can be life-threatening.
This ruling opens up all sorts of comedic possibilities though. Let's say you have someone who believes that modern medicine is a sham. If they are only willing to fund homeopathic treatments as part of their health plan, does that fall under protecting their beliefs?
Would this apply to broader topics than healthcare, still covered by religious freedom? Naturally we're only talking about funding things.
Quakers and Buddhists are strictly religiously opposed to violence and warfare, yet 18.74% (2010 figures) of US Quakers and Buddhists tax dollars go to fund the Department of Defense! The US Government is forcing them (with the threat of jail) to fund the most expensive warmaking apparatus in the World. Can they now opt to pay 18.74% less tax?
I feel the urge to quote Monty Python : "Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
@Nonnahswriter the *decision* was not a "bill". It wasn't drafted, is not subject to judicial review, and is cannot be deemed "unconstitutional". It sounds absolutely ridiculous to describe it as such, and pretty much makes the entire "favoritism angle" that people have been proposing complete nonsense.
Even if that was not the case, the Majority opinion did not even say Christianity, nevermind "Christianity only".
Here is the big secret: they did not even invoke the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment
The only actual piece of legislation aside from the ACA that came into question was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 1. It is important to note that this law does not apply to states and only to the federal government 2. If we are going to discuss "favoritism" then 18 percent of the cases involving this law were in regards to Muslim, Jewish and Native American religious practices. Those three groups make up a whopping 3% of the American population. If that is protecting "only one religion" then I'm a bearded gnome (and I don't even have a beard)
I feel like I spend half the time on this thread correcting things that are factual incorrect in every way you look at them, and this makes having a real debate very difficult, particularly when more than half the participants are from other nations and of course have less working knowledge of the American system. I kinda want to blame the media, but people who have an interest should have the desire to do proper research.
Quakers and Buddhists are strictly religiously opposed to violence and warfare, yet 18.74% (2010 figures) of US Quakers and Buddhists tax dollars go to fund the Department of Defense! The US Government is forcing them (with the threat of jail) to fund the most expensive warmaking apparatus in the World. Can they now opt to pay 18.74% less tax?
I completely sympathize with these people, being anti-war myself. However, unlike birth control, national defense is a need of every country, and there is no alternative to a state maintained military. Unfortunately the word "Defense" seems to be ignored by the DoD these days, which is half the problem.
On the bright side, you can avoid the draft on religious grounds. Considering how immoral conscripted service is, I'd say this is the least you could as for.
As far as health care is concerned, I think most of the problem lies in how insurance has been so closely linked to employment. This creates half of the conflicts in and of itself.
The problem with politics is that it's based on ideology, not results. You either believe in big or small government. You believe in regulation or Laissez-faire, global warming or coal, conservative or liberal, right or left, hippie communist scum or republican(:P), I could go on. Why? Because that's what you believe. You get your truth, I get mine.
It seems that many people prescribe to this idea of "results over ideology". I do not.
The problem is "results" are entirely subjective. You do not know the value of something to another person, because "value" is a subjective quality depending on the person in question's preferences. You could look at "cold hard facts" and think you know the answers... but you don't because human beings are not numbers, are not subjects of scientific experiments and cannot be defined by equations.
I'd like to point something out about "value", the term we usually use to describe "results". Isn't it interesting that we use that *exact* same term to define someone's moral belief system?
Not everything that produces "results" is good. Oftentimes they require sacrifice in other areas. For example, economic results are measured in dollars and cents, but can often cost more in human misery.
For example, the Belgian takeover of the Congo brought the Belgian government huge profits in mining copper. It was a huge economic success.
How great were the "results" for the Congolese people?
It is very simple to just say that you only care about "results". Yet the truth is when someone says this they are almost always referring to the "results" that they want, that align with their values. In world full of so many diverse and unique individuals, it is absolutely never that simple.
Perhaps the much-maligned notion of having an "ideology" is more important than many people seem to think.
@Nonnahswriter the *decision* was not a "bill". It wasn't drafted, is not subject to judicial review, and is cannot be deemed "unconstitutional". It sounds absolutely ridiculous to describe it as such, and pretty much makes the entire "favoritism angle" that people have been proposing complete nonsense.
I'm human. I make mistakes. Here, have an article that doesn't confuse the terms. They clearly know better than I do.
Even if that was not the case, the Majority opinion did not even say Christianity, nevermind "Christianity only".
Here is the big secret: they did not even invoke the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment
I'm confused on who "they" is in the second sentence. Do you mean the Majority opinion, or Hobby Lobby? If you mean Hobby Lobby, I'm aware that they didn't.
The only actual piece of legislation aside from the ACA that came into question was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 1. It is important to note that this law does not apply to states and only to the federal government 2. If we are going to discuss "favoritism" then 18 percent of the cases involving this law were in regards to Muslim, Jewish and Native American religious practices. Those three groups make up a whopping 3% of the American population. If that is protecting "only one religion" then I'm a bearded gnome (and I don't even have a beard)
Oh? So instead of protecting all religions, we're protecting...four. And that's not even scratching the surface on the many sects and divides within those giant faiths. You can't just round up the tribes under the label Native American and call it good; they practice different things. Some of those practices are probably under protection, but not all of them.
Regardless, there's still a whopping of Hindus, Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others whose religious rights are not being invoked in this decision. It doesn't matter how large or how small the number is. It doesn't matter if the favoritism involves sects of Jewish and Native American practices. If you want to extend religious liberties to private companies, you have to extend to all of them for all accounts. Because the Court effectively can't, because that would be nuts, it's implied favoritism.
I feel like I spend half the time on this thread correcting things that are factual incorrect in every way you look at them, and this makes having a real debate very difficult, particularly when more than half the participants are from other nations and of course have less working knowledge of the American system. I kinda want to blame the media, but people who have an interest should have the desire to do proper research.
And yet you support a decision based in falsehood. Here, read this. It's exactly why this decision is so problematic.
As far as health care is concerned, I think most of the problem lies in how insurance has been so closely linked to employment. This creates half of the conflicts in and of itself.
Following the Hobby Lobby decision, plenty of other companies are now free to go on to deny parts of health care based on their religion.
When they are denied as such, THEN it will be unfair, it will be bias, and I too will be annoyed as you are @Nonnahswriter. Until that happens (which I hope to God it doesn't), I don't see where the issue is.
@Nonnahswriter the decision applies to all religions. I'd like to know one reason why you think otherwise.
I mean, its kind of a joke that you think because 30% of the cases heard were about those three religions that it is favoritism. That would be like saying that since 75% of first amendment cases involved newspapers that there is favoritism shown for print media over online media... and therefore we should do away with ALL OF IT mwahahaha.
I mean, come on.
Again, the only thing the majority opinion said was that there were better ways that the government can provide birth control that do not impose on someone else's religion. Well, four types of birth control out of about twenty at least (the sky is falling!). I'd imagine other cases would go similarly if challenged.
As far as this being a decision and not a piece of legislation, I'm sorry but that actually IS kinda important, since you claimed that it was "unconstitutional". You put it in italics. And then you made it in bold font to drive the point home... without actually making a point on how it is unconstitutional. Without giving a basis as to why it is! When its not even a bill that can be considered constitutional or not! I see this a lot tbh. People like to say things are unconstitutional but what they really mean is "I don't like it".
I'm confused on who "they" is in the second sentence. Do you mean the Majority opinion, or Hobby Lobby? If you mean Hobby Lobby, I'm aware that they didn't.
I'm afraid that not only do you have it wrong here, but you have it backwards. Hobby Lobby DID invoke the 1st Amendment in their arguments, the court did not address their claims under the Free Exercise Clause... at all. Not once.
Honestly I think half of the factual problems that people encounter when discussing these type of issues arise from always reading opinion pieces such as the ones you shared as opposed to actual news sources. Every writer twists information and omits any facts that might weaken their position. Less Salon.com more CNN.
I feel like I spend half the time on this thread correcting things that are factual incorrect in every way you look at them, and this makes having a real debate very difficult, particularly when more than half the participants are from other nations and of course have less working knowledge of the American system. I kinda want to blame the media, but people who have an interest should have the desire to do proper research.
And yet you support a decision based in falsehood. Here, read this. It's exactly why this decision is so problematic.
Ahhhhhh! So much information! This is why you must choose your sources carefully! New>Opinion Okay, as someone who has been studying this stuff for seven years now, I'll try to clarify things that pundits with no background in health care are *intentionally* trying to muddle The claim against the pills in question (in fact only two of the four... the sky is still falling!) being abortifacients is that they prevent implantation (which normally occurs AFTER fertilization), and the medical definition of pregnancy refers to the time period after implantation. However, that is NOT the medical definition of *life*, which is what the owners of Hobby Lobby are concerned about. Yet partisan hacks seem to be obsessed with technicalities and foster dishonesty in this discussion. You are basically getting "lawyered" by these articles, since they are intentionally misleading in this regard. As far as what you consider to be a life and what other consider to be a life, please look at my post about values.
Could you explain to me why you are so in favor of European integration and so dismissive of Euroscepticism? I'd really like to hear an opinion of someone who actually lives in one of the less EU-friendly nations that are not Greece.
Another thing about UK politics. I've been hearing a lot about how UKIP is a classical liberal/libertarian leaning party... yet all the news about them seems to be how they have extreme anti-immigration nativist tendencies, are for the monarchy and having an established national church as well as being in favor of massive military spending. On the other hand they seem to oppose bailouts and the war on drugs while being for free-trade. So... overall its pretty confusing with all these mixed messages. Could any of you limeys educate me?
I love to know more about that too. It's a topic I find the topic of European politics and their attempts to work together quite fascinating. . . Even if it is all a little . . . poorly executed? Poorly conceived? Poorly thought out? . . . Not sure how to put my thoughts into words, so tired.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but if you're getting "facts" from CNN, you're guilty of the very thing you're accusing others of. All TV news shows are corporately owned. Of course they're not going to report the real story. Ever since news departments were forced to turn a profit, their credibility ceased to exist. CNN is a joke like the rest of them. Try reading the actual text of the Supreme Court case—I linked to it in an earlier post. Draw your own conclusions from the transcripts and judicial statements, not something you saw on TV.
I do like how they never fight a campaign on issues. They shouldn't be allowed to smear other parties in anyway. They need to focus more on policy, less on discrediting. If there is a reason people are flocking to a new party then there much be a reason. Why don't they spend more time working out what it is and less time going "LOOK IT'S HITLER!!"?
I don't live in Europe, although we'd love to move to Scotland/England. But I've also never liked the idea of superstates. To much power centered in one place just leads to massive arms races and a big pissing match over who's got the biggest. . . guns. When there are dozens of smaller powers, with less territory and less power it tends to lead to a little more peace and quiet. At least in my opinion.
I'll give my view on the EU and UKIP, though please realise I'm a bit of a disaffected lefty and will have some bias. Nor am I an expert.
The EU contains many of our biggest and nearest trade partners. Approximately 50% of the UK's Imports and Exports are with EU nations. Being part of the EU means many of our trade laws are standardised to make trade of goods and services more effective. Being a part of the EU also means that we have collective bargaining power for trade agreements with non-EU nations. I am no economist, but these things seem to be good.
Being part of the EU also allows free movement and employment of people across national boundaries without the need for visas or work permits. This is a contentious issue as some people see it as permitting unlimited immigration, but I've been to a lot of places where the only thing allowing organisations to function is the recruitment of experienced graduates from overseas. In my experience, one of the main things propping up (beloved national instituation) the National Health Service is doctors and nurses from other EU nations (as well as Africa and the Indian subcontinent), who are willing to work in smaller regional hospitals that UK graduates avoid. (Free movement also means we can go on holiday to sunny places without needing a visa and passport, yay!)
One reason I particularly like the EU is the European Convention on Human Rights and the court that upholds it. It often faces criticism from the UK press and government (much of it exaggeration or outright falsehood) for being soft, allowing human rights defenses and so on. However it does tend to act as a counter to the UK government's trend toward exchanging civil liberties and rights for security powers. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" and all that.
The EU is far from perfect, as illustrated by the Common Agricultural Policy which maintains artificially high food prices and disproportionately benefits very large scale farmers and rich landowners. Often European elections are held out-of-synch with national elections, leading to low turnouts and "protest vote" parties getting elected as Members of European Parliament. However, the UK alone is a mid-sized country with high levels of debt and a flagging economy, and a history of being at war with or generally pissing off half the nations on Earth. As a member of the EU we are one part of a relatively peaceful economic superpower. I know which I prefer.
And a seperate bit on UKIP. I don't want to crit anyone for too big a wall of text at once.
The United Kingdom Independence Party is an odd beast. It started out (in 1993) as a single-issue organisation that did not recognise the authority of the EU. One of the founders, Alan Sked, left the party quite early on (1997), claiming that many members "are racist and have been infected by the far right". There's an interview with him here, from the Guardian. Admittedly this is a disgruntled former leader talking to a liberal newspaper, but it makes some damning accusations. He claims the current leader, Nigel Farage, used quite a few racial slurs in his presence, and advocated having former National Front (a white-only far right group) members as candidates for election.
From what I've seen more generally in the press, UKIP is still a very narrow issue-based party. Their primary focus is on an In-or-Out referendum on the EU, and they have used quite a bit of anti-immigrant propaganda in their advertising campaigns. Beyond their core concept there doesn't seem a huge amount of coherence to their policies, with various candidates giving diverging ideas about other policies when interviewed. They're seen as a party of protest, and a lot of people are disaffected and mistrustful of politicians. UKIP are seen in a positive light as eccentrics and political outsiders (despite many of them being professional politicians with sky-high expenses claims as MEPs). They polled 27.5% of the vote in the most recent European elections, but turnout was only 34.19% - So a total of 9.4% of all eligible voters voted for them.
Personally I see their relative success at the recent EU and local elections as a combination of electoral anger at mainstream politics, populist Eurosceptic and anti-immigration rhetoric and low turnout. I doubt they'll do anywhere near as well in a major election. They're a bit like the Tea Party in the US - on the fringe of one of the major political parties, with ideas that won't really make it in the mainstream. They do well in polls and make a lot of noise but when national elections roll around people go back to their traditional party.
UK politics are strange. People do very much seem inclined to vote on personalities, rather than issues, and even though they often hate things that recently elected parties have done, they still continue to vote for them out of some odd sense of loyalty.
You're not kidding! It's like that hear sometimes, mainly among the voters who are more set in their ways. I've always voted Liberal so I will KEEP voting Liberal. It's just what they do. The younger generation seem to vote with whatever strikes their fancy at the time, if they care at all.
Sadly politics is something a lot of people here just don't care about. They vote for whoever yells about less taxes and that is it. They don't know anything about their policies, their plans, their ideology. Education is also severely lacking. We learned more about American politics them our own.
In other news, Japan has dropped it's pacifism concept and is seeking closer strategic ties with Australia and the U.S. which is sure to anger the Chinese.
''Japan is now working to change its legal basis for security so that we can act jointly with other countries in as many ways as possible.''
Personally, I don't see any problem with this, the Chinese have been skittish about their borders, well forever and Japan would be a nice counterbalance. However, this could also makes things much much more tense.
I also don't see why Japan shouldn't take part in joint international operations with other countries abroad.
The Japanese prime minister went on saying the Tokyo-Beijing relationship was ''one of the most important bilateral relationships'' but then blaming China for a deterioration.
@booinyoureyes The main reason for eurosceptism is the belittling of Britain. The scare tactics used to keep the voters in line is quite literally daily. OH NO! BRITAIN WILL DIE IF WE LEAVE THE EU! Whats worse is some people believe the hype. @Corvino , I'm sorry is one.
The EU contains many of our biggest and nearest trade partners. Approximately 50% of the UK's Imports and Exports are with EU nations. Being part of the EU means many of our trade laws are standardised to make trade of goods and services more effective. Being a part of the EU also means that we have collective bargaining power for trade agreements with non-EU nations. I am no economist, but these things seem to be good.
In 2013 the UK was the 4h-largest exporter in the world and the 6th-largest importer, and had the 3rd-largest stock of inward foreign direct investment and the 2nd-largest stock of outward foreign direct investment. The UK is thus one of the world's most globalised economies.
Look basically, we sell everywhere. It is not 50% Europe and India and China (even Brazil believe it or not) according to the figures under the chart are now starting to dwarf the European market.
Oh and Norway, Switzerland share the same trade privileges and they our outside the EU.
Being part of the EU also allows free movement and employment of people across national boundaries without the need for visas or work permits. This is a contentious issue as some people see it as permitting unlimited immigration, but I've been to a lot of places where the only thing allowing organisations to function is the recruitment of experienced graduates from overseas. In my experience, one of the main things propping up (beloved national instituation) the National Health Service is doctors and nurses from other EU nations (as well as Africa and the Indian subcontinent), who are willing to work in smaller regional hospitals that UK graduates avoid. (Free movement also means we can go on holiday to sunny places without needing a visa and passport, yay!)
The minimum wage is bypassed with foreign labour. It is wrong to suck the talent pools from other countries when we should promote education and training in our own country. And the number of times I've crossed a european border is nil. You still need your passport to leave and enter Britian (even on the ferry)
One reason I particularly like the EU is the European Convention on Human Rights and the court that upholds it. It often faces criticism from the UK press and government (much of it exaggeration or outright falsehood) for being soft, allowing human rights defenses and so on. However it does tend to act as a counter to the UK government's trend toward exchanging civil liberties and rights for security powers. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" and all that.
They should have gone down the route of Social responsibilities. No one is responsible anymore, no one is as accountable. Instead people blame and point fingers about infringements of rights. People given rights cannot uphold them as they are a free given so they are open to abuse (such as used by criminals). People given responsibilities would need to uphold them (and if they abused them they would be accountable).
The EU is far from perfect, as illustrated by the Common Agricultural Policy which maintains artificially high food prices and disproportionately benefits very large scale farmers and rich landowners. Often European elections are held out-of-synch with national elections, leading to low turnouts and "protest vote" parties getting elected as Members of European Parliament. However, the UK alone is a mid-sized country with high levels of debt and a flagging economy, and a history of being at war with or generally pissing off half the nations on Earth. As a member of the EU we are one part of a relatively peaceful economic superpower. I know which I prefer.
Britian does not pee of half the nations on the planet. They are a big contributor to NATO. It abides international rules. It pees other nations off because it is a tiny island the size of a pee compared to nearly all other nations.
Britian has power. And true large nations can't get to grips as to why. Basically the laws of it's land and its people! Yet by 2020 at current growth estimates it will only have the nations of US, China, Japan and Germany ahead of it. (Although Germany may or may not collapse, because it is not a globalised economy like Britian. It really does only sell its stuff in europe (lack of an empire thing or some such, don't understand what I just read looking it up...)
Basically. We don't need Europe. Europe needs us. Unless they start listening and doing. We can go our own way and let them sink. Many Europeans are moving here already, a mass influx from Spain at present. Yay! Tapas!
@Corvino Not a personnel attack. It's just Europe is really quite insidious in how it effects British life. At university in 1996, I signed up for a course called In the interests of Currency - should Scotland have it's own currency and why the Euro will fail. Basically it was about interest rates and how London has such a large effect, and perhaps the rest of the country should have different interest rates to reflect the local economies. The course was closed before it got to talk about Europe. Some EU directive. THAT SCARES ME. We can't even say it is bad.
Just consider China = US and Japan = Cuba in any discussion about this issue. Both Superpowers consider threats on their dooorstep critical regardless other evidence. I've not got a horse in this race, but maintenance of status quo is a key factor for both the US and PRoC. Neither wants to look like a dick (obviously) but both desire to apppear "on top".
NB - If a nation launches a nuke in anger they will be considered a dick in perpetuity. No exceptions.
I would rather have Britain as a power then almost anyone else. World War 2 cost the British much of it's economy at the time did it not? Dismantling it's exclusive trade rights with it's colonies and Commonwealth?
Nuclear weapons, while terrifyingly destructive, do not scare me as much as some of the biological weapons we have stockpiled and know how to create. An engineered virus is beyond terrifying. Not to mention some of the concepts for the future, biogenetic weapons for example are an awful concept Hitler himself would have been proud of.
This is true, the status quo is in everyone's best interest. The Chinese are a lot less vocal about their plans, economy and technology then the U.S. is.
Does ANYONE still consider the nuke a useful option? Other then as a deterrent? Seems to me in the 50-60's it was THE wonder weapon. Then they kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger and more and more destructive, people starting questioning the wisdom of this whole concept. . .
IIRC South Africa is the only country to ever willingly give up and destroy all of it's nuclear weapons. Good on them!
I find the idea of weapons of mass destruction to be majorly flawed. You'll never completely prevent war, all you can hope for is to keep civilians out of the way. Sadly it's never the way but it's a noble sentiment anyway.
Oh... btw I was clearly being a bit facetious with the above post. Modern liberalism is obviously not that simple. It is just hard for me to pass up on taking a shot at the guy who proclaimed himself "Krugtron the Invincible" for always being right!
Pompey the Great proclaimed himself as such when he was alive. Julius Ceasar, who thought this was crass and idiotic and eventually defeated Pompey in the civil war in which the old Republic of rome died (so oversimplified!) Did not proclaim himself anything. Although he did get his followers to proclaim him a god... he ran out of hp when a rogue stabbed him in the back (mind blown The Rise of Julius Ceasar is based on the bhaalspawn saga, is Marc Anthony just an even more irritating version of Imoen... Hang on they both wore the purple!?!)
@Anduin hahaha! That is brilliant! What do you think of Gaius Julius' record by the way? My history teacher thinks he may have grossly over exaggerated his achievements, given the main source of information on him was written by himself. He thinks and I mostly agree that his achievements can be put down to the skill of the legions he ordered about. As a politician he naturally inflated. . . everything.
Comments
If they infringe on your rights what do you plan to do with your guns?!
( My apologies if I'm coming off rude, I love a good debate, let's keep anything said in the politics thread, in the politics thread, Yea?
If the government ever does something truly despicable, let's keep in mind the police, federal marshal, etc. are all people, like us. They have a breaking point too, they have a point where they say enough is enough. If absolute worst comes to worst, all we have to worry about is the Department of Homeland Security actually taking up arms against citizens. Besides them, no civil warring is going to happen, not with the weapons and technology at large today. It's funny, the USA is often made fun of for practically worshipping our military (I agree it's a bit of overboard), but if there's one thing it guarantees, it's that the military isn't going to fire upon us even if we were to lead another revolution.
Armed citizens does not mean "we're going to have to USE our guns to keep the government in line." Armed citizens means that the government can and will actually fear us, to some SMALL extent, which is better than them having absolutely no fear at all. Guns are more symbolic than anything, because sane people don't open fire on random people, as you stated yourself. This symbol IS important because I can honestly say, the majority of our current government is a bunch of statists arguing over what they personally think is right, and trying to enforce their own ideas of right and wrong upon everyone else. Ergo: They don't give a shit about us. I'm not about to give up the one thing standing between me and them and potentially totalitarianism, if they really want it.
Now, one might say: Wow, you really don't trust your government do you? Of course I don't. When people are given a position of power, and they are making decisions that affect people that aren't in front of their face, it is human nature to care very little about the people below them. One might say: If you aren't going to trust your government, why should they trust you? Good point! They don't, and they never will. This is once again because of the veil between me and them, the veil of anonymity. Not true anonymity, but enough to make people, once again, by nature, not truly care.
This is good enough for me. I understand that humanity isn't perfectable, that we are inherently flawed in as many ways as we are good. Capitalism, our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence were formed upon the ideals that humanity is flawed, but to make do anyway. It only takes a little bit of history reading (anyone who does not take history to heart should honestly not be involved in politics, it's quite easy to learn from the mistakes of others; others who, like the rest of us, were actually trying to do good. Hindsight is 20/20) to understand that humanity has been repeating the same mistakes over and over, and we always will. Technology changes, times change, but humans are still motivated by the exact same things, and are still very much the same.
Searching for perfection in a massive body of people is a fool's errand. Once again all it takes is a little history reading, and you'll find that all the people who tried to perfect a society ended up killing massive amounts of the people they claimed to love and vowed to serve; whether through famine, war, sickness, or whatever else. The people in history that we look at and think "wow, they were truly evil," were all human. We are all capable of such atrocities, and often times the catastrophes were caused simply by a powerful person who was dead set that they had the right answer for everyone; they thought they had the majority's best interests at heart.
A free society, like the one we have in America that we are slowly chipping away at, allows the good to distinguish themselves from the bad. It allows them to live as they see fit, by their own set of moral standards and values. Both our Republican and Democratic parties claim to know what's best for everyone else, and quite frankly, they are both mistaken. How can I know what's best for you? That's just stupid, and incredibly disrespectful. You know what's best for you, maybe some really close friends and family who intimately know you do as well. Should I legislate you to fit my moral standards? No! On the flip-side, why shouldn't I be free to express my opinion? My morals? But there's a huge difference between me telling you what to do, and me forcing you to do.
Humanity will never be perfect. But I believe the point of life is to try. To get as close as you can be, to learn and evolve, expand and self-improve and try and leave the world a slightly better place then what it was when we came into it. It's a lofty goal but even in some way I'd like to succeed!
Let's recap: this decision gives privately owned businesses the ability to deny birth control contraception to their employees on the basis of it violating their religious rights.
Okay.
This decision only effects contraception. It does not include blood transfusions, pig-based medications, and anti-depressants.
Aaaaaand here in lies the problem:
Jehovah's Witness is a sect of Christianity that is against any blood-based medical procedures. (Link.) Most famously, this includes blood-transfusions, which are used to treat blood-borne diseases, or to simply replenish a person's blood cell count after a major surgery.
As some of you may know, devout Jewish and Islam people cannot have pig-based medications. Similarly, devout Hindus cannot have cow-based medications. Islam and Judaism prohibit the consumption of pig-products (food, medicine, etc.), while the Hindu faiths consider cows to be sacred. (Basically, they can use products from a living cow, but if the product was made at the expense of a cow's life, they will not take it. Medicine and beef are out.) Link.
The Church of Scientology is against the practice of anti-depressants. In short, they are most concerned with human spirituality, and how a person's spiritual existence is connected to God. They believe that an individual is a spirit, not a body with chemical make-up and genes, and this spiritual being goes through cycles of rehabilitation and salvation. Since anti-depressants, by definition, mess with your mental health, they could also be seen as screwing with a person's spiritual health. (Link.)
...
As stated, this bill only effects contraception.
But why can't a Jewish business owner express his religious freedom the same way the other (mostly Christian) religions can? Why does he have to pay for pig-based medications for his employees? His money is being unjustly taken from him in the form of taxes to pay for things beyond his control--to pay for the digestion of hundreds of pig-based medications.
Or, let's take a more extreme example: A Jehovah's Witness. One of her employees was caught in a car accident. He will die if he does not have a blood transfusion, as he has lost too much blood to survive on his own. However, her faith abhors medical practices involving blood. Why should she have to pay for her employee's blood transfusion? It is an infringement on her religious rights, isn't it? She doesn't want her well-earned money funding a medical practice she is so faithfully against.
And that's just two examples. If this bill were to truly grant companies religious freedom, then it has to be written for ALL religions in this country. The United States of America is a nation founded on free speech and religious equality. You are free to come here and practice whatever faith you want without being judged or persecuted by the government or any other authority figure. This is one of the greatest things that I take pride in as an American.
But this bill, as written right now, is not religious equality. It's religious favoritism, leaning mostly towards conservative Christians. Unless we extend this same honor of religious expression to the many other religions in this country, this bill is, in my humble opinion, unconstitutional.
...
So. Here we have: a can of worms.
That's what this is. One religious voice prevails over dozens more, and now you'll have more corporate entities vying for the same rights as Hobby Lobby. And if the Supreme Court is still sane on some level, more often than not, it'll have to tell the other faiths, "No. This cannot carry over to blood transfusions/anti-depressants/pork/bovine products." On what basis? You're going to deny the religious rights of any other faith that isn't a conservative Christian? Because the conservative Christian teachings on contraception are reasonable, but the Hindu refusals to fund cow medications are not? Where is the equality in that? Where is the freedom in that?
There is none. Only worms. It's a giant can of worms that the Supreme Court should have just left the fuck alone.
((If there's anyone of the above faiths who wants to correct me on anything, feel free to do so. I am no expert. But as it stands, it's 2:20 in the morning, and I want to go to bed. Discuss, and goodnight!))
This ruling opens up all sorts of comedic possibilities though. Let's say you have someone who believes that modern medicine is a sham. If they are only willing to fund homeopathic treatments as part of their health plan, does that fall under protecting their beliefs?
Quakers and Buddhists are strictly religiously opposed to violence and warfare, yet 18.74% (2010 figures) of US Quakers and Buddhists tax dollars go to fund the Department of Defense! The US Government is forcing them (with the threat of jail) to fund the most expensive warmaking apparatus in the World. Can they now opt to pay 18.74% less tax?
I feel the urge to quote Monty Python : "Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
@Nonnahswriter the *decision* was not a "bill". It wasn't drafted, is not subject to judicial review, and is cannot be deemed "unconstitutional". It sounds absolutely ridiculous to describe it as such, and pretty much makes the entire "favoritism angle" that people have been proposing complete nonsense.
Even if that was not the case, the Majority opinion did not even say Christianity, nevermind "Christianity only".
Here is the big secret: they did not even invoke the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment
The only actual piece of legislation aside from the ACA that came into question was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
1. It is important to note that this law does not apply to states and only to the federal government
2. If we are going to discuss "favoritism" then 18 percent of the cases involving this law were in regards to Muslim, Jewish and Native American religious practices. Those three groups make up a whopping 3% of the American population. If that is protecting "only one religion" then I'm a bearded gnome (and I don't even have a beard)
I feel like I spend half the time on this thread correcting things that are factual incorrect in every way you look at them, and this makes having a real debate very difficult, particularly when more than half the participants are from other nations and of course have less working knowledge of the American system. I kinda want to blame the media, but people who have an interest should have the desire to do proper research.
I completely sympathize with these people, being anti-war myself. However, unlike birth control, national defense is a need of every country, and there is no alternative to a state maintained military. Unfortunately the word "Defense" seems to be ignored by the DoD these days, which is half the problem.
On the bright side, you can avoid the draft on religious grounds. Considering how immoral conscripted service is, I'd say this is the least you could as for.
As far as health care is concerned, I think most of the problem lies in how insurance has been so closely linked to employment. This creates half of the conflicts in and of itself.
The problem is "results" are entirely subjective. You do not know the value of something to another person, because "value" is a subjective quality depending on the person in question's preferences. You could look at "cold hard facts" and think you know the answers... but you don't because human beings are not numbers, are not subjects of scientific experiments and cannot be defined by equations.
I'd like to point something out about "value", the term we usually use to describe "results". Isn't it interesting that we use that *exact* same term to define someone's moral belief system?
Not everything that produces "results" is good. Oftentimes they require sacrifice in other areas. For example, economic results are measured in dollars and cents, but can often cost more in human misery.
For example, the Belgian takeover of the Congo brought the Belgian government huge profits in mining copper. It was a huge economic success.
How great were the "results" for the Congolese people?
It is very simple to just say that you only care about "results". Yet the truth is when someone says this they are almost always referring to the "results" that they want, that align with their values. In world full of so many diverse and unique individuals, it is absolutely never that simple.
Perhaps the much-maligned notion of having an "ideology" is more important than many people seem to think.
Regardless, there's still a whopping of Hindus, Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others whose religious rights are not being invoked in this decision. It doesn't matter how large or how small the number is. It doesn't matter if the favoritism involves sects of Jewish and Native American practices. If you want to extend religious liberties to private companies, you have to extend to all of them for all accounts. Because the Court effectively can't, because that would be nuts, it's implied favoritism. And yet you support a decision based in falsehood. Here, read this. It's exactly why this decision is so problematic. Well, it's nice to know we agree on something.
When they are denied as such, THEN it will be unfair, it will be bias, and I too will be annoyed as you are @Nonnahswriter. Until that happens (which I hope to God it doesn't), I don't see where the issue is.
I mean, its kind of a joke that you think because 30% of the cases heard were about those three religions that it is favoritism. That would be like saying that since 75% of first amendment cases involved newspapers that there is favoritism shown for print media over online media... and therefore we should do away with ALL OF IT mwahahaha.
I mean, come on.
Again, the only thing the majority opinion said was that there were better ways that the government can provide birth control that do not impose on someone else's religion. Well, four types of birth control out of about twenty at least (the sky is falling!). I'd imagine other cases would go similarly if challenged.
As far as this being a decision and not a piece of legislation, I'm sorry but that actually IS kinda important, since you claimed that it was "unconstitutional". You put it in italics. And then you made it in bold font to drive the point home... without actually making a point on how it is unconstitutional. Without giving a basis as to why it is! When its not even a bill that can be considered constitutional or not! I see this a lot tbh. People like to say things are unconstitutional but what they really mean is "I don't like it".
I'm afraid that not only do you have it wrong here, but you have it backwards. Hobby Lobby DID invoke the 1st Amendment in their arguments, the court did not address their claims under the Free Exercise Clause... at all. Not once.
Honestly I think half of the factual problems that people encounter when discussing these type of issues arise from always reading opinion pieces such as the ones you shared as opposed to actual news sources. Every writer twists information and omits any facts that might weaken their position. Less Salon.com more CNN.
Ahhhhhh! So much information! This is why you must choose your sources carefully! New>Opinion
Okay, as someone who has been studying this stuff for seven years now, I'll try to clarify things that pundits with no background in health care are *intentionally* trying to muddle
The claim against the pills in question (in fact only two of the four... the sky is still falling!) being abortifacients is that they prevent implantation (which normally occurs AFTER fertilization), and the medical definition of pregnancy refers to the time period after implantation.
However, that is NOT the medical definition of *life*, which is what the owners of Hobby Lobby are concerned about. Yet partisan hacks seem to be obsessed with technicalities and foster dishonesty in this discussion. You are basically getting "lawyered" by these articles, since they are intentionally misleading in this regard.
As far as what you consider to be a life and what other consider to be a life, please look at my post about values.
Directed @Corvino (and perhaps @Anduin would like to chip in)
Could you explain to me why you are so in favor of European integration and so dismissive of Euroscepticism? I'd really like to hear an opinion of someone who actually lives in one of the less EU-friendly nations that are not Greece.
Another thing about UK politics. I've been hearing a lot about how UKIP is a classical liberal/libertarian leaning party... yet all the news about them seems to be how they have extreme anti-immigration nativist tendencies, are for the monarchy and having an established national church as well as being in favor of massive military spending. On the other hand they seem to oppose bailouts and the war on drugs while being for free-trade. So... overall its pretty confusing with all these mixed messages. Could any of you limeys educate me?
All TV news shows are corporately owned. Of course they're not going to report the real story. Ever since news departments were forced to turn a profit, their credibility ceased to exist. CNN is a joke like the rest of them.
Try reading the actual text of the Supreme Court case—I linked to it in an earlier post. Draw your own conclusions from the transcripts and judicial statements, not something you saw on TV.
I don't live in Europe, although we'd love to move to Scotland/England. But I've also never liked the idea of superstates. To much power centered in one place just leads to massive arms races and a big pissing match over who's got the biggest. . . guns.
When there are dozens of smaller powers, with less territory and less power it tends to lead to a little more peace and quiet. At least in my opinion.
The EU contains many of our biggest and nearest trade partners. Approximately 50% of the UK's Imports and Exports are with EU nations. Being part of the EU means many of our trade laws are standardised to make trade of goods and services more effective. Being a part of the EU also means that we have collective bargaining power for trade agreements with non-EU nations. I am no economist, but these things seem to be good.
Being part of the EU also allows free movement and employment of people across national boundaries without the need for visas or work permits. This is a contentious issue as some people see it as permitting unlimited immigration, but I've been to a lot of places where the only thing allowing organisations to function is the recruitment of experienced graduates from overseas. In my experience, one of the main things propping up (beloved national instituation) the National Health Service is doctors and nurses from other EU nations (as well as Africa and the Indian subcontinent), who are willing to work in smaller regional hospitals that UK graduates avoid. (Free movement also means we can go on holiday to sunny places without needing a visa and passport, yay!)
One reason I particularly like the EU is the European Convention on Human Rights and the court that upholds it. It often faces criticism from the UK press and government (much of it exaggeration or outright falsehood) for being soft, allowing human rights defenses and so on. However it does tend to act as a counter to the UK government's trend toward exchanging civil liberties and rights for security powers. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" and all that.
The EU is far from perfect, as illustrated by the Common Agricultural Policy which maintains artificially high food prices and disproportionately benefits very large scale farmers and rich landowners. Often European elections are held out-of-synch with national elections, leading to low turnouts and "protest vote" parties getting elected as Members of European Parliament. However, the UK alone is a mid-sized country with high levels of debt and a flagging economy, and a history of being at war with or generally pissing off half the nations on Earth. As a member of the EU we are one part of a relatively peaceful economic superpower. I know which I prefer.
TL;DR - Corvino thinks the EU is flawed but good.
The United Kingdom Independence Party is an odd beast. It started out (in 1993) as a single-issue organisation that did not recognise the authority of the EU. One of the founders, Alan Sked, left the party quite early on (1997), claiming that many members "are racist and have been infected by the far right". There's an interview with him here, from the Guardian. Admittedly this is a disgruntled former leader talking to a liberal newspaper, but it makes some damning accusations. He claims the current leader, Nigel Farage, used quite a few racial slurs in his presence, and advocated having former National Front (a white-only far right group) members as candidates for election.
From what I've seen more generally in the press, UKIP is still a very narrow issue-based party. Their primary focus is on an In-or-Out referendum on the EU, and they have used quite a bit of anti-immigrant propaganda in their advertising campaigns. Beyond their core concept there doesn't seem a huge amount of coherence to their policies, with various candidates giving diverging ideas about other policies when interviewed. They're seen as a party of protest, and a lot of people are disaffected and mistrustful of politicians. UKIP are seen in a positive light as eccentrics and political outsiders (despite many of them being professional politicians with sky-high expenses claims as MEPs). They polled 27.5% of the vote in the most recent European elections, but turnout was only 34.19% - So a total of 9.4% of all eligible voters voted for them.
Personally I see their relative success at the recent EU and local elections as a combination of electoral anger at mainstream politics, populist Eurosceptic and anti-immigration rhetoric and low turnout. I doubt they'll do anywhere near as well in a major election. They're a bit like the Tea Party in the US - on the fringe of one of the major political parties, with ideas that won't really make it in the mainstream. They do well in polls and make a lot of noise but when national elections roll around people go back to their traditional party.
Sadly politics is something a lot of people here just don't care about. They vote for whoever yells about less taxes and that is it. They don't know anything about their policies, their plans, their ideology. Education is also severely lacking. We learned more about American politics them our own.
In other news, Japan has dropped it's pacifism concept and is seeking closer strategic ties with Australia and the U.S. which is sure to anger the Chinese.
''Japan is now working to change its legal basis for security so that we can act jointly with other countries in as many ways as possible.''
Personally, I don't see any problem with this, the Chinese have been skittish about their borders, well forever and Japan would be a nice counterbalance. However, this could also makes things much much more tense.
I also don't see why Japan shouldn't take part in joint international operations with other countries abroad.
The Japanese prime minister went on saying the Tokyo-Beijing relationship was ''one of the most important bilateral relationships'' but then blaming China for a deterioration.
Thoughts?
In 2013 the UK was the 4h-largest exporter in the world and the 6th-largest importer, and had the 3rd-largest stock of inward foreign direct investment and the 2nd-largest stock of outward foreign direct investment. The UK is thus one of the world's most globalised economies.
Look basically, we sell everywhere. It is not 50% Europe and India and China (even Brazil believe it or not) according to the figures under the chart are now starting to dwarf the European market.
Oh and Norway, Switzerland share the same trade privileges and they our outside the EU. The minimum wage is bypassed with foreign labour. It is wrong to suck the talent pools from other countries when we should promote education and training in our own country. And the number of times I've crossed a european border is nil. You still need your passport to leave and enter Britian (even on the ferry) They should have gone down the route of Social responsibilities. No one is responsible anymore, no one is as accountable. Instead people blame and point fingers about infringements of rights. People given rights cannot uphold them as they are a free given so they are open to abuse (such as used by criminals). People given responsibilities would need to uphold them (and if they abused them they would be accountable). Britian does not pee of half the nations on the planet. They are a big contributor to NATO. It abides international rules. It pees other nations off because it is a tiny island the size of a pee compared to nearly all other nations.
Britian has power. And true large nations can't get to grips as to why. Basically the laws of it's land and its people! Yet by 2020 at current growth estimates it will only have the nations of US, China, Japan and Germany ahead of it. (Although Germany may or may not collapse, because it is not a globalised economy like Britian. It really does only sell its stuff in europe (lack of an empire thing or some such, don't understand what I just read looking it up...)
Basically. We don't need Europe. Europe needs us. Unless they start listening and doing. We can go our own way and let them sink. Many Europeans are moving here already, a mass influx from Spain at present. Yay! Tapas! Why is a flawed thing good?
@Corvino Not a personnel attack. It's just Europe is really quite insidious in how it effects British life. At university in 1996, I signed up for a course called In the interests of Currency - should Scotland have it's own currency and why the Euro will fail. Basically it was about interest rates and how London has such a large effect, and perhaps the rest of the country should have different interest rates to reflect the local economies. The course was closed before it got to talk about Europe. Some EU directive. THAT SCARES ME. We can't even say it is bad.
Lastly the waste is astronomical.
http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/ecadefault.aspx
Read and weep. Under the formal tone is one big mess.
NB - If a nation launches a nuke in anger they will be considered a dick in perpetuity. No exceptions.
Nuclear weapons, while terrifyingly destructive, do not scare me as much as some of the biological weapons we have stockpiled and know how to create. An engineered virus is beyond terrifying.
Not to mention some of the concepts for the future, biogenetic weapons for example are an awful concept Hitler himself would have been proud of.
This is true, the status quo is in everyone's best interest. The Chinese are a lot less vocal about their plans, economy and technology then the U.S. is.
Does ANYONE still consider the nuke a useful option? Other then as a deterrent? Seems to me in the 50-60's it was THE wonder weapon. Then they kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger and more and more destructive, people starting questioning the wisdom of this whole concept. . .
IIRC South Africa is the only country to ever willingly give up and destroy all of it's nuclear weapons. Good on them!
I find the idea of weapons of mass destruction to be majorly flawed. You'll never completely prevent war, all you can hope for is to keep civilians out of the way. Sadly it's never the way but it's a noble sentiment anyway.
But just for some clarification on a certain point Are they? Every news article I've heard about them declares them to be just slightly to the right of the German Nazi party.
Classical Liberalism:
Modern Liberalism:
I'am "Calo the Glorious". . .
You don't get to pick those monikers :P They get given to you, he doesn't understand that? :P
ahaha