thought this was funny

[reaper239]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLr2if-BdA4

[Solanine]

On the eighth day god sent Reaper239. To troll me I think? :L

In all seriousness though they seem to be confused.
Liberalsim is nothing to do with financial policy.
Liberalism V.s Conservatism is social policy such as gay marriage or abortion.
You can have a liberal who believes in fiscal responsibility and a conservative who supports public healthcare.

And as far as their point goes they simplified things a lot.
They glossed over the fact they support taking your money without asking to fund the military but not healthcare.
At that point they're not defending your rights, they're telling you what to think. And if somebody tries to tell you what to think grab the nearest weapon. Seriously.
Its one step from that to 1984.

[Solanine]

Just another point, when you tout the right to bar arms and personal liberty, thats liberalism.

[reaper239]

On the eighth day god sent Reaper239. To troll me I think? :L

In all seriousness though they seem to be confused.
Liberalsim is nothing to do with financial policy.
Liberalism V.s Conservatism is social policy such as gay marriage or abortion.
You can have a liberal who believes in fiscal responsibility and a conservative who supports public healthcare.

And as far as their point goes they simplified things a lot.
They glossed over the fact they support taking your money without asking to fund the military but not healthcare.
At that point they're not defending your rights, they're telling you what to think. And if somebody tries to tell you what to think grab the nearest weapon. Seriously.
Its one step from that to 1984.

you're thinking of classic liberals, which may well be liberals in europe, but here in america, liberals are big goverment and reduced rights. the best way i can describe it is this: i advocate for a small government that lets me take care of myself, that has no bearing on how i live my life and exists solely to protect the individual liberties of citizens, and i am considered a conservative, liberals advocate taking from me, by force, to give to someone who has not earned it, and believe in using government to do it.

oh, and btw, the military is something the governement is constitutionally mandated to maintain in this country, not so with healthcare. in fact, government provided/managed healthcare is quite unconstitutional, not that that means anything to the current asshole in chief, but you know, there it is. see, i think that the military should be 80% of the federal budget, not that we should spend more on it, but that we should spend less on everything else.

[reaper239]

On the eighth day god sent Reaper239. To troll me I think? :L


God's gift to sol, here for your betterment, education, and edification.

[Solanine]

you're thinking of classic liberals, which may well be liberals in europe, but here in america, liberals are big goverment and reduced rights. the best way i can describe it is this: i advocate for a small government that lets me take care of myself, that has no bearing on how i live my life and exists solely to protect the individual liberties of citizens, and i am considered a conservative, liberals advocate taking from me, by force, to give to someone who has not earned it, and believe in using government to do it.

oh, and btw, the military is something the governement is constitutionally mandated to maintain in this country, not so with healthcare. in fact, government provided/managed healthcare is quite unconstitutional, not that that means anything to the current asshole in chief, but you know, there it is. see, i think that the military should be 80% of the federal budget, not that we should spend more on it, but that we should spend less on everything else.

Actually in america liberals too were originally as described. However with the solidification of political niche's in a two party system liberalism came to mean you were a democrat and conservative a republican.


oh, and btw, the military is something the governement is constitutionally mandated to maintain in this country, not so with healthcare
And who decided on the constitution? The American people. Which ever way you look at it you pay tax to fund the military. Not because you have any choice but because thats the will of the majority.
I picked military at random, I'm in no way a idealist who's anti military. I'm a scientist and much of the industry is funded and pushed to extremes by military investment.

Can you explain to me how healthcare is unconstitutional. Last I heard the supreme court ruled it was constitutional.

God's gift to Reaper, here for your betterment, education and edification.

In all seriousness though all due respect. I see so many of my generation spoiled by the comfort of their lives and un-able or un-willing to even take a stance.
Its worrying and incredibly toxic. Politics should not be a career.The Arch bishop of the Canterbury has more economic and business experience than the chancellor.
As you once put it RAGE! :mad:

[reaper239]

regardless of what the supreme court says, the government is not allowed to say that because you are alive, you must purchase this, it's unconscionable, and it's morally reprehensible, take away the fact that it's healthcare. if i said that because you are alive you must buy a gun, you'd have an aneurism. now, i'm not anti healthcare, but i think that saying that someone has to have something, no matter what it is, or the government will use it's power to force a penalty on you, is just ridiculous.

i'm also against using the threat of force to take from someone who has earned and give to someone who has not earned.

you are absolutely right on one point, liberalism used to mean exactly what it sounds like, but the progressive collectivist movement has been warping terminology until things are a bit backwards.

here in America, it used to be different, as i'm sure it was in Britain too. you would be elected, serve in your elected office, and then go home because you actually had a business or a job to get back too. you had a life outside of DC. but once politics became a career, the politicians lost touch with reality, and then the voters became so disenfranchised with their officials that they started to believe that was the norm, so when people who actually know what they're doing come along, like herman cain, everyone says, "who's this guy? he keeps suggesting these things that we haven't heard before, he must be crazy." meanwhile the establishment politicians are spouting the same old nonsense over and over.

[Solanine]

regardless of what the supreme court says, the government is not allowed to say that because you are alive, you must purchase this, it's unconscionable, and it's morally reprehensible, take away the fact that it's healthcare. if i said that because you are alive you must buy a gun, you'd have an aneurism. now, i'm not anti healthcare, but i think that saying that someone has to have something, no matter what it is, or the government will use it's power to force a penalty on you, is just ridiculous.

i'm also against using the threat of force to take from someone who has earned and give to someone who has not earned.

you are absolutely right on one point, liberalism used to mean exactly what it sounds like, but the progressive collectivist movement has been warping terminology until things are a bit backwards.

here in America, it used to be different, as i'm sure it was in Britain too. you would be elected, serve in your elected office, and then go home because you actually had a business or a job to get back too. you had a life outside of DC. but once politics became a career, the politicians lost touch with reality, and then the voters became so disenfranchised with their officials that they started to believe that was the norm, so when people who actually know what they're doing come along, like herman cain, everyone says, "who's this guy? he keeps suggesting these things that we haven't heard before, he must be crazy." meanwhile the establishment politicians are spouting the same old nonsense over and over.

You are forced to buy military protection every day. And contribute to roads. And pay for street lights. Just for the record if a law was passed in the UK that forced me to own a gun I probably wouldn't have a problem. As long as it was a referendum issue. Hell In that situation I'd probably start carrying it as well. If I'm going to do something I'd rather do it right.

[reaper239]

You are forced to buy military protection every day. And contribute to roads. And pay for street lights. Just for the record if a law was passed in the UK that forced me to own a gun I probably wouldn't have a problem. As long as it was a referendum issue. Hell In that situation I'd probably start carrying it as well. If I'm going to do something I'd rather do it right.

see, and that's the difference between you and i, we have two totally different perspectives on government, so let me put it another way: what right do you have to tell me what i must buy?

[LiamKerrington]

see, and that's the difference between you and i, we have two totally different perspectives on government, so let me put it another way: what right do you have to tell me what i must buy?

If you refer with "you" to any individual, the answer to your question is a challenge of its own kind, which I cannot master. But I think you could support such a "right" with the ideas behind 'courage to stand up for one's beliefs' or 'moral courage'. But this would end at the beliefs, moral and opinion of the one being addressed. This actually is what happens between the both of you, reaper239 and solanine. :cool:
edit:
As for me: I couldn't care less, 'cause I acknowledge any political, social, or economical system as valid for as long as I am 'allowed' to live my life without too many hindrances.
/edit

But if you refer with "you" to public authorities, government, or the democratic system, I have a very different answer: Elections in most (all?) Democracies, which lead to the representation of the people in parliament or the embodiment of a president or whatever, are based on the idea that the people transfer the legal power and justification for the establishment of rules and laws to the government, or public authorities. And this may, actually, lead to the prohibition or limitation of 'things'. Thus it is totally leagl to buy an apple; it becomes a small challenge to get guns legally; and then there are things which you cannot buy legally - like drugs, slaves ... And all these things are not solely based on a constitution or the moral and ethical beliefs of the people, but especially on what the government, or public authorities decide because they were empowered through elections by the people.

And about the original posting:

Yeah, the video is funny.

All the best!
Liam

[Solanine]

see, and that's the difference between you and i, we have two totally different perspectives on government, so let me put it another way: what right do you have to tell me what i must buy?

The only true natural right, the right of strength.
At one point it would have been asserted in territorial disputes between individual animals.
Gathering in groups changed things and eventually the right of strength became asserted by a different means, the will of the majority.
Part of being a member of society is that, as Liam points out, you transfer legal power over to a body that executes the will of the people.
As Churchill was once quoted as saying I believe "Democracy is the worst form of governance with the exception of all others that have been tried.

[reaper239]

well then it's prolly a good thing that America's not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. and if it's a matter of force, i have more guns than you, so make me ;) :p

[LiamKerrington]

well then it's prolly a good thing that America's not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. and if it's a matter of force, i have more guns than you, so make me ;) :p

:D

edit:
A question:

In short words: How do the elections in the US work - elections for President, Congress? Although it is a "constitutional republic", does it not rely on Democratic principles?

Anyway: My posting is not so much about who is right or wrong or who has the longer breath; I just enjoy the moment to learn things.

edit2:
I did some reading on the wikipedia-articles regarding the system of elections in the USA. And I am confused: To me it seems that elections follow Democratic principles - a lot.
Also: Germany is not a "Democracy", but a "Federal Republic". And elections function along the concepts of Democracy as well.
As I understand it, the US-Senate is comparable with the German Federal Council to some degree, but has much more authority then the German Federal Council.
The US-House of Representatives is comparable with the German Federal Parliament to some degree, although it seems to me that the German Federal Parliament is much more powerful (in theory).
The US-President and the German Chancelor, both are not elected by the people, but by a certain legal body - the Electoral College for the US-President, and the Federal Parliament of Germany; both, the President and the Chancellor fulfill similar tasks in the face of the people, the constitution.
Interestingly the US-system things of the Congress, which includes Senate and the House, as being the government, while in Germany the government is a body of individuals elected by the German Federal Parliament; the German government is under direct control of the German chancellor, while the Federal Parliament is "just there" for the pruposes of checks and ballances. The funny thing here, though, is that the members of the German Government, the ministers of different authorities, match the ministers which gather around the US-President; also they all share similar power.
Now, what I do here, is just comparing both systems and concluding that the real power and power-structures are not so depend on how you name "things". As you see: There are similarities between both systems; and at the core two main concepts show up: a) both systems heavily rely on the empowerment by the people through elections, b) as soon as elections are over the power remains within the ranks of each system and beyond the reach of direct control by the people. In other words:

Both systems - the one in the USA and the FRG (Federal Republic of Germany) - root in the principles of Democracy, in which the people elect a small group of representatives who are empowered to establish and enforce laws being valid for everyone. And both election-systems are rooted in the constitution of each nation.

Now, if there is something important I have missed here, I would be very glad to learn about it; I admit that the system of the US is confusing to some degree, not so much because of the topic as such, but because of the special wording provided in the Wikipedia-Articles. ;)

sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate#Elections_and_term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives

All the best!
Liam

[Solanine]

well then it's prolly a good thing that America's not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. and if it's a matter of force, i have more guns than you, so make me ;) :p

Were it a few hundred or maybe even five hundred years back you'd have a point. Mine is that strength comes in many forms and today no single person can out compete the majority working together.
Therefore what the majority says goes. Which is how government and taxation works. And if you refused to pay he taxes that the government (ie the majority) have decided you have to pay then they will send the boys round. No matter how many guns you may own. xD

And Liam is right, the US works on democratic principles.

[reaper239]

a democracy is mob rule, ie 51% is the deciding factor, in a constitutional republic, just because 51% says, "this is what do" the 49% says, "that's unconstitutional" and it doesn't happen. the constitution is there to protect the minorities from the majorities.

[LiamKerrington]

a democracy is mob rule, ie 51% is the deciding factor, in a constitutional republic, just because 51% says, "this is what do" the 49% says, "that's unconstitutional" and it doesn't happen. the constitution is there to protect the minorities from the majorities.

I agree, if the principles of Democracy just follow this core understanding of Democracy. In Germany this is very different. We only have "democratic principles". About half of the Parliament is elected in terms of majority, while the other half of Parliament is elected in terms of relativity allowing smaller and more specialized policitians and political parties to join in the political discourse. And many political decision may be challenged easily by minorities - either because political decisions have to pass high thresholds (much highter then 51%) or by getting other federal institutions involved which may stop things from happening.

My dear Reaper: Since your last posting overlapped with my second editing of my last respons I ask you to give it a second read and maybe a second thought as well. Thank you very much.

All the best!
Liam

[Solanine]

Yes but the supreme court has ruled that Obama care is constitutional and the logic used to explain by you why it is not constitutional is flawed to be brutally honest. Can you quote me any bits of your constitution that make this invalid?

[reaper239]

Yes but the supreme court has ruled that Obama care is constitutional and the logic used to explain by you why it is not constitutional is flawed to be brutally honest. Can you quote me any bits of your constitution that make this invalid?

what we're dealing with here is a fundamental difference in thought processing. see, i come from the same school of thought that was embodied by the founders of my country (i know this because i've read their writtings and opinions) and you are asking for an argument where logic dictates none need exist. the very idea that government can pass whatever law it wants, and it's ok as long as it's not forbidden in the constitution, is ludicrous on it's face. in fact, the constitution says as much in the 10th ammendment "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." the fact that the constitution doesn't say the fed can force citizens into an act, is reason that it's prohibitted. the fed has, through ammendment, the power to tax imports, exports, and income, it does not, however, have the power to tax a citizens being.

[LiamKerrington]

Yeah, a totally different concept. In Germany the constitution says that the people elect the members of parliament which are empowered to create laws which are valid in the face of the "base-law"; the "base-law" is the constitution of Germany. And in this base-law there are something like a trillion different things the legislative may take care of with the help of laws or decretes. That is very different to what you have written, reaper239. Thus, although the concepts of both our nations heavily rely on principles of Democracy, the understanding of empowerment seems to be very different - at least in the light of each constitution.

Am out of this discussion; but am looking froward to reading more cool stuff.

All the best!
Liam

[Solanine]

But surely they do this when they tax you? Whether you pay your tax to your individual state or the govt as a whole you still are being taxed by them for military, Nasa etc.

[reaper239]

But surely they do this when they tax you? Whether you pay your tax to your individual state or the govt as a whole you still are being taxed by them for military, Nasa etc.

but they're not taxing my person, they are taxing my income, or they are taxing goods, or they are taxing property, this is the first time in the history of the United States that a tax has been levied on a person, this is the first time a tax has been levied void of some form of transaction. and it's either tax, or healthcare. again, i don't have a problem with healthcare, or healthcare reform, but they are using the tax code to directly influence the citizens choices. it's not even the same as discouraging behavior through sin tax (you do this and there will be a hefty tax (which i am also against btw)) now they are saying that if you don't behave a certain way, you will be punished with a tax. it's the same as saying, "if you are over weight, you will pay a fat tax" or something like that.

[reaper239]

:D

edit:
A question:

All the best!
Liam

ok, so i'm going to give a quick breakdown of US politics. as i said earlier, a democracy is mob rule, but a republic is mob rule by proxy, ie. 51% elect a representative to do things the way they see fit, so it's a more sophisticated mob rule. a constitutional republic is a republic governed by the principles embodied in a constitution drafted by the founders of that society. Americas constitution is restrictive of government in that it works to restrict government actions regarding the people to very specific roles. the government is broken into three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. the exectutive branch is the president. the president (as i'm sure you can figure out) runs the day to day operations of the government (through delegation obviously) and acts as the face of America. the legislative is broken into two houses, the upper house or house of representatives, and the lower house or senate. the house is formed of representatives elected by population, ie the more people in your state, the more representatives you have, and the senate is formed of 100 senators, two for each state. keep in mind this is all federal, state governments are similar and the laws from state to state are as varied as laws from country to country in europe. the judicial branch is, of course, the court system which measures laws against the constitution. the executive and legislative branches are are elected democraticly (i think i spelled that right (prolly not)) and the judicial branch is appointed by the executive and confirmed to the position by the legislative. the house of representatives or the senate can author a bill, but then it must pass through the senate. if it succeeds, it moves on to the executive to either be signed into law, or vetoed and sent back. both the legislative and executive are bound by the constitution. if signed into law, and there is some fundemental problem with the law (or just a disagreement over it in general), a law suit will generally be filed and will work its way up the chain to the supreme court which will hold it up to the constitution and determine whether it will be the law of the land. there is a lot more to the US political system than that, but for the basic premise of your questions, this is the the gist.

[LiamKerrington]

ok, so i'm going to give a quick breakdown of US politics. as i said earlier, a democracy is mob rule, but a republic is mob rule by proxy, ie. 51% elect a representative to do things the way they see fit, so it's a more sophisticated mob rule. a constitutional republic is a republic governed by the principles embodied in a constitution drafted by the founders of that society. Americas constitution is restrictive of government in that it works to restrict government actions regarding the people to very specific roles. the government is broken into three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. the exectutive branch is the president. the president (as i'm sure you can figure out) runs the day to day operations of the government (through delegation obviously) and acts as the face of America. the legislative is broken into two houses, the upper house or house of representatives, and the lower house or senate. the house is formed of representatives elected by population, ie the more people in your state, the more representatives you have, and the senate is formed of 100 senators, two for each state. keep in mind this is all federal, state governments are similar and the laws from state to state are as varied as laws from country to country in europe. the judicial branch is, of course, the court system which measures laws against the constitution. the executive and legislative branches are are elected democraticly (i think i spelled that right (prolly not)) and the judicial branch is appointed by the executive and confirmed to the position by the legislative. the house of representatives or the senate can author a bill, but then it must pass through the senate. if it succeeds, it moves on to the executive to either be signed into law, or vetoed and sent back. both the legislative and executive are bound by the constitution. if signed into law, and there is some fundemental problem with the law (or just a disagreement over it in general), a law suit will generally be filed and will work its way up the chain to the supreme court which will hold it up to the constitution and determine whether it will be the law of the land. there is a lot more to the US political system than that, but for the basic premise of your questions, this is the the gist.

Thank you very much. Much appreciated.

This actually supports what I highlighted in my comparison, although I did not go into so much detail regarding the three branches. From what I learn from your words, though, a major difference seems to be the understanding of government. In the US it is basically the combination of Senate and House, which is - as I understand it - the Congress; in Germany the government is the top-level of the executive, which is the German Chancellor together with his ministers, while "The State" is the total of executive, legislative (especially the Federal Parliament), and the judicial. In the theory of our constitution the Chancellor is held and controlled by a tight concept of checks and balances based on its relation to on the one hand the the legislative, which are mainly the Federal Parliament and depending on certain matters subsequently the Council of Constituent States (the latter being the match for your Senate), and on the other hand the judicial embodied in the Federal Constitutional Court. (The members of the Council of Constituent States are representatives or delegates from the 16 states within the Federal Republic of Germany; and in each such state, again based on the constitution of Germany as well as each state's constitution a complex and diverse system of legislative, executive, and judicial co-exists for matters of each state's own concerns.)

But the political reality has established kind of a more powerful executive heavily supported by the majority of the Parliament, because the Executive (Chancellor) is elected by the Parliament and thus typically a member to the majority of the Parliament.

(maybe I do not use the proper terms/ wording for the different roles; but I think you get the idea.)

Bottomline: Principles and concepts of the constitutional background of the political system are - infact - very similar, when you compare the USA and the FRG; but the devil's detail lies in the peculiarities of each system.

And now some extra tossed in: Since Germany is part of the EU with the EU not being empowered by the people of EU but by the governments of the member states, Germany is a member of a "supranational body" - along with the other EU member states as well as the EU with its own jurisdictions and powers; the EU at its core is nothing else but kind of an executive with some legislative powers; but the rules especially do not bind the people of the EU; instead the rules established by the EU (with the EU empowered by the EU member states) mainly bind the member states, or more precise: bind all three branches (legislative, judicial, executive) within each of the member states. And this again leads to the silly effect that the German Parliament and Government do not do so much according to the will and empowerement by their own people in Germany, but their actions are very much directed by what 'Brussels' (aka the EU) forces upon them. Why forces? Because, if Germany as well as any other EU-member-state does not follow the rules and regulations of the EU, it "breaks" EU-law and is entitled to punishments in real cash, which often includes many millions of our currency (the EUR), which then misses for national projects and tasks ...
The funny thing here is: the will of the EU is often used as kind of a shielding against critics; governments and representatives often claim that they had no other choice but to decide things, because the EU asked for it; and yet this is only half true; the other part of the truth is that the EU mostly asks the member states to act in certain ways, because the member-states' executive branches (chancelors, presidents, prime-ministers, etc. as well as ministers of all kinds) made the EU establish its will in the first play. In shorter words: If the EU "forces" its will upon the member states, it does so, because the leaders of the various nations deputed their own political decisions into the "machines of the EU"; and since things take some time, it is pretty simple to claim later that the member-states have nothing to do with what the EU wants them to do and that they are bound to what the EU wished them to do, because the EU-treaties bind them accordingly ...

It is not too far-fetched if someone says: The governments or parliaments of the nations are authorized by the people through democratic elections; but afterwards the political elite hand in hand with specialists and economical powers simply play their own game. Don't get me wrong: There is nothing wrong with specialists and the economy working together with the political branch; the problem, though, is that they claim to act for the collective good, while the truth looks much difference - just as an example: most recently the EU pushes heavily to iberalize drinking watrer supplies thus getting the control of public authorities out of the way and to put companies like Nestlé or Coca Cola in charge of the common good of drinking water; this implies that the political powers act in favor of the few in control of various economical branches, while the greater good and thus the will of the people in general is pushed away.

The level of frustration in many societies within the EU-member-states is very high and keeps increasing; and if you just look at what happens especially in the southern EU-member-states currently and today with the announcement in the UK you cannot ignore the simple fact that the societies and therefore the core of each people are without power in anyway; the democratic elections are quite symbolic, but have no real meaning in terms of the "greater good". If you like, you could say: With elections based on democratic principles you give away all of your power for the term of any given government within the EU or in Germany, meaning: between the elections you are not a "member of the club" up until the open house presentation, when you are entitled to "play democracy" just in order to empower the club's members ... Bitter people in Germany call electors "Stimmvieh", which translates into "voting cattle" or, for the sake of the negative understanding of this German word: "voting stock".

That's why critics often enough highlight the political, legal and ideological facts that the EU leads away from the democratic principles, which is why many 'independet' political powers seek to demote the member-states in their identity, while the EU should become something like the US, in which the empowrement of EU-institutions is directly given by the people of the EU ...
It is frustrating to know that I as a part of the people and the people of each EU-member state have so little to say and so little influence on what is going on. And if I had the means and the qualifications or at least the skills, I'd seek home and shelter in another area of the world. And that in all honesty.

Sorry for getting a little off topic ... And if you have the impression that I slightly rant, you have no idea ...

All the best!
Liam

[reaper239]

Thank you very much.
This actually supports what I highlighted in my comparison, although I did not go into so much detail regarding the three branches. From waht I learn from your words, though, a major difference seems to be the understanding of government. In the US it is basically the combination of Senate and House, which is - as I understand it - the Congress; in Germany the government is the top-level of the executive, which is the German Chancellor together with his ministers. In the theory of our constitution the Chancellor is in a tight concept of checks and balances in relation to the legislative, which are the Federal Parliament and the Council of Constituent States (the latter being the match for your Senate), and the judicial embodied in the Federal Constitutional Court; but the political reality has established kind of a more powerful executive heavily supported by the majority of the Parliament, because the Executive (Chancellor) is elected by the Parliament and thus typically a member to the majority of the Parliament.
(maybe I do not use the proper terms/ wording for the different roles; but I think you get the idea.)

Bottomline: Principles and concepts between the US and Germany are - infact - very similar; but the devil's detail lies in the peculiarities of each system.

And now some extra tossed in: Since Germany is part of the EU with the EU not being empowered by the people of EU but by the governments of the member states, Germany is a member of a "transnational relation" with the other EU member states as well as the EU as legal body as well; the EU at its core is nothing else but kind of an executive with some legislative powers; but the rules they especially do not bind the people of the EU; instead the rules established by the EU (with the EU empowered by the EU member states) mainly bind the member states, or better: bind the governments of the member states. And this again leads to the silly effect that the German Parliament and Government do not so much according to the will and empowerement by the people of German, but their actions are very much directed by what 'Brussels' (aka the EU) forces upon them. Why forces? Because, if Germany as well as any other EU-member-state does not follow the rules and regulations of the EU, it "breaks" EU-law and is entitled to punishments in real cash, which often includes many millions of our currency (the EUR), which then misses for national projects and tasks ...

It is not too far-fetched if someone says: The governments or parliaments of the nations are authorized by the people through democratic elections; but afterwards the political elite hand in hand with specialists and economical powers simply play their own game. Don't get me wrong: There is nothing wrong with specialists and the economy working together with the political branch; the problem, though, is that they claim to act for the collective good, while the truth looks much difference. The level of frustrations in many societies of the EU-member-states is very high; and if you just look at what's happening especially in the southern EU-member-states and today with the announcement in the UK you cannot ignore the simple fact that the societies and therefore the core of each people are without power in anyway. If you like, you could say: With elections based on democratic elections you give away all of your power for the term of any given government within the EU or in Germany.

That's why critics often enough highlight the political, legal and ideological facts that the EU leads away from the democratic principles, which is why many political powers seek to demote the member-states in their identity, while the EU should become something like the US, in which the empowerement of EU-institutions is directly given by the people of the EU ...
It is frustrating to know that I as a part of the people and the people of each EU-member state have so little to say and so little influence on what is going on. And if I had the means and the qualifications or at least the skills, I'd seek home in other areas of the world. And that in all honesty.

Sorry for getting a little off topic ... And if you have the impression that I slightly rant, you have no idea ...

All the best!
Liam

yes, it sounds like things are very similar, but i think it's inaccurate to say that the government is any particular branch, our government, the way it's designed, is a balance between the three branches.

now see, this is why i hate the US being involved with crap like the UN, if you make your nation beholden to foreign powers, it's really no longer your nation is it? it's someone else's nation, and they get to make the rules. that was the whole reason we rebelled in the first place, we felt it prudent to be beholden to our selves and no one else.

and finally, you are always welcome here. we're fighting through some BS at the moment, but i think we'll get right here shortly.

[LiamKerrington]

now see, this is why i hate the US being involved with crap like the UN, if you make your nation beholden to foreign powers, it's really no longer your nation is it? it's someone else's nation, and they get to make the rules. that was the whole reason we rebelled in the first place, we felt it prudent to be beholden to our selves and no one else.

In general I have no trouble with "something from the outside" interfering with the inside of a nation. This is how society, ideologies, economy, environmental things work between nations; thus I have no big trouble with political systems interacting as well.
But the stress is on interacting. For as long the people of the world stick to the concepts of nations and borders, I develop a weird feeling about constructs like the EU or the UN, if these receive more and more power, while the individuals and in general the people of a country get disconnect and dependent about what is going on "up there".

The German consitution - the base law - is a quzite powerful tool, 'cause political decision from the outside cannot interfere with political decisions within Germany as easily; this has something to do with the concepts and the eternalness of the consitution on the one side and the very strictly regulated concepts of our federation. But with the recent developments within the EU (thus the last about 15 years) many small changes have been added to the constitution, which all in all start to undermine the solid foundation of our constitution. As I wrote in my long rambling: the executive branch has kind of "tricked" Germany into a dependency of the executive camouflaging behind the institutes of the EU.

'nuf said about that.


and finally, you are always welcome here. we're fighting through some BS at the moment, but i think we'll get right here shortly.

I just took a look at the immigration details ... Man, first of all I would have to live in the US for quite some time before applying for citizenship ... THings are not as easy. But I think to receive a Green Card I don't have to become a rocket scientist, right? ;)

All the best!
Liam

[Solanine]

So as usually happens I forget to check in for a few days and I lose track of the thread completely. Anyway, have fun.

[reaper239]

In general I have no trouble with "something from the outside" interfering with the inside of a nation. This is how society, ideologies, economy, environmental things work between nations; thus I have no big trouble with political systems interacting as well.
But the stress is on interacting. For as long the people of the world stick to the concepts of nations and borders, I develop a weird feeling about constructs like the EU or the UN, if these receive more and more power, while the individuals and in general the people of a country get disconnect and dependent about what is going on "up there".

The German consitution - the base law - is a quzite powerful tool, 'cause political decision from the outside cannot interfere with political decisions within Germany as easily; this has something to do with the concepts and the eternalness of the consitution on the one side and the very strictly regulated concepts of our federation. But with the recent developments within the EU (thus the last about 15 years) many small changes have been added to the constitution, which all in all start to undermine the solid foundation of our constitution. As I wrote in my long rambling: the executive branch has kind of "tricked" Germany into a dependency of the executive camouflaging behind the institutes of the EU.

'nuf said about that.



I just took a look at the immigration details ... Man, first of all I would have to live in the US for quite some time before applying for citizenship ... THings are not as easy. But I think to receive a Green Card I don't have to become a rocket scientist, right? ;)

All the best!
Liam

yeah, we definitely need some major immigration reform, the path to becoming a citizen is ridiculous. working with this girl right now that was left here by here aunt and uncle illegally. she was raised by here grandmother, but when her granny rrealized she was dying, she sent her to her aunt and uncle in America (the aunt and uncle were scumbags). her aunt and uncle left her here and went back to india, and completely abandon her. totally not her fault, but trying to get her a green card before she's 21 is like trying to get an ar15 in britain just not happening. this girl did nothing wrong and has cooperated every step of the way, but since 9/11, immigration has gotten ridiculous. if she was mexican they'd overlook her completely, but because she's indian she'll get deported once she's 21. i'm half tempted to tell her to work on her spanish and move to a border state.

[LiamKerrington]

So as usually happens I forget to check in for a few days and I lose track of the thread completely. Anyway, have fun.

Will have. But please keep in mind: The discussion became a very theoretical about the various systems with some minor criticism on the EU. My wall of word might be kind of a challenge. Sorry.


yeah, we definitely need some major immigration reform, the path to becoming a citizen is ridiculous. working with this girl right now that was left here by here aunt and uncle illegally. she was raised by here grandmother, but when her granny rrealized she was dying, she sent her to her aunt and uncle in America (the aunt and uncle were scumbags). her aunt and uncle left her here and went back to india, and completely abandon her. totally not her fault, but trying to get her a green card before she's 21 is like trying to get an ar15 in britain just not happening. this girl did nothing wrong and has cooperated every step of the way, but since 9/11, immigration has gotten ridiculous. if she was mexican they'd overlook her completely, but because she's indian she'll get deported once she's 21. i'm half tempted to tell her to work on her spanish and move to a border state.

Yeah, 9/11 most certainly is not just a, but the milestone in that regard. And the story about the girl is very sad. Am hoping for the best, how unlikely it may happen ...

All the best!
Liam