Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

A unification of Europe into one nation would mean the end of the Swedish model, of Swedish governmental traditions and governmental culture. There's no reason I would want that. And yeah, it's fairly obvious to everyone that the American system works extremely poorly. Governments just don't work on that scale, and neither would a United States of Europe. There's no self-determination left at that point, and there's nothing just about such a democracy. Swedes would be powerless to affect the laws of their own land. There's no reason Britons, Frenchmen and Germans should decide over Swedes just because there's more of them - that's the very essence of wolf-and-sheep democracy. Particularly as there is absolutely no sense of solidarity or community between the big European countries and their smaller neighbours other than when it benefits the former - Germany's treatment of Greece during the last years demonstrates clearer than anything else that Germany is a fairweather friend of the worst kind.

[scriver]

There's absolutely no reason to have a united nation at all. Giving up one's sovereignity is like asking to he run over, and there's no guarantee you'll ever get it back. Just look at the US and what haooen to their states' right to secede.

[Frumple]

... can y'all take this to the european politics thread or... whatever. Somewhere else.

[Bauglir]

Say that to our faces in the American Politics Thread and see what happens

Spoiler: What Would Happen (click to show/hide)

I'd largely agree that the United States' federalism implementation is Not The Best and shouldn't be looked at as a model for any other state (America itself is in a weird position where 200 years of cumulative history have ensured that it no longer makes cultural sense to divide the Union, but we're still in an extremely dissonant mindset where people hate the Feds and love America). There are compelling reasons for a universal nation state, but they largely come down to homogenizing things like currency, legal philosophy, civil/human rights, and providing a centralized court for crimes committed in an official's capacity as an official (and even this should be implemented in a way that has people tried by regional peers, rather than getting Joe Asianguy sentenced and tried by a bunch of European judges who're totally unfamiliar with the local culture). Everything else, like virtually all budgeting, or the mechanisms by which people gain office, and so on and so forth, would need to be delegated to regional governments similar in scale to modern nations.

Or at least, that's what would happen if I were to post a response. I'm not entirely sure I would.

[SalmonGod]

I want a boss like this.

My favorite part is the simple quote:  "If you have to give back, you took too much."

I wish I could thank him profusely for saying just this.  It's something so obvious that I've been thinking for several years already, but no one else seems to get.

Overall, the speech is sort of rambling and scattered, and he doesn't make a real point.  I wish he did a better job explaining his thoughts on education, because I couldn't follow that part very well.  But it's nice to see some anti-bullshit thinking being put forth on a high profile stage.  Calling much of our modern society what it is:  an addiction to control and a loss of perspective.

[Bauglir]

Hey, I needed a topic for a presentation in the management course I somehow plunked myself into without realizing it. Yoink!

[Solifuge]

Another good link, SG... some food for thought there. Wow.

[Sheb]

Actually, I find it kind of weird that we don't have a procedure written out for leaving the Union. We should have done so years ago.

[TripJack]

the declaration of independence has the procedure written out - revolution

[Sheb]

Didn't exactly work out for the CSA.

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/legally-married-boss-disagrees-130000885--politics.html

You know, it's just such a discouraging thing. And now, the conservatives have found a catchy tagline called "religious liberty, to backdoor in oppression to gays in a less offensive (for now) way.. He makes the same old tired arguments about "tradition," and it falls flat because:



So let's examine this faulty logic Mr Huckabee is exposing, shall we: "I have with friends who are gay...."
"It’s like asking somebody who’s Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped-shrimp in their deli. ... or asking a Muslim to serve up something that is offensive to him or to have dogs in his backyard," he said. "We’re so sensitive to make sure we don’t offend certain religions, but then we act like Christians can’t have the convictions that they’ve had for over 2,000 years.""


Wow, so many reasons this is wrong and where to start. Let's just focus on the following 1.) historical false "I have friends" rhetoric, 2.) Idea that not mandating a religion's view into law is persecuting it, and 3.) "Jewish deli bacon wrapped shrimp" comment.

1.) Get suspicious whenever anybody says, "I have _____ friends." That fill in the blank for a group of people has traditionally (there's that word he loves) been used by racists, sexists, and bigots against different faiths to proclaim they aren't racist, sexist or bigoted. Kind of funny how most of those people can't name any of those friends, or state the last time they hung out, what they did together last, or produce a ____ friend who supports them. It's a self proclaimed unsupported statement, that could be supported sooooo easily. Of course, it won't be supported because none of these, frankly imaginary _____ friends are going to willingly stand by and support you while you trample them.....

2.) The idea that not mandating a religion's view into law is persecuting it is flatly incorrect. Whenever somebody talks about whose religion to make law, everybody sticks their hand up, except different religions have different beliefs banning or supporting different things and MANY conflict. There are over 300 different types of "Christianity" (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Calvinist, Mormon, Jesuit, Jehovah's Witness, Amish/Rhenish/Mennonite, and that's just the very beginning of a long list). Some religions really ban alcohol; we tried prohibition; it failed, miserably. Same goes for dancing, gambling, interracial marriage, EATING COW (Hindu) and just tons of others. There are even Christian Denominations who support gay marriage, and frankly they can't agree which parts of the bible they want to follow or ignore. So here's the question: Why are we legally allowed to eat cow, but gays can't get married? Those Hindus have believed in sacred cows for a loooong time.....

3.) the "Jewish deli bacon wrapped shrimp" comment is completely off the mark. Nobody forces Jews to open delis, or to serve bacon wrapped shrimp or any other menu item. If there is certain menu item served by the deli to the public, then you can't just refuse to serve that item to certain people due to being say .... Black, or Hispanic, or Buddhist, or Gay. Yeah, if the Deli owner CHOOSES to serve menu item #4 on the menu board, and some black guy comes up and orders a #4, the Deli owner had better not refuse to serve that black dude a #4 because he's black. Here, the deli owner is a baker who opened up a bakery, and the #4 is wedding cakes. No, you can't refuse to sell somebody a #4 just because they're insert thing here _______ (Black, White, Gay, Straight, etc).

If you're a Muslim and you believe alcohol is against your beliefs, ok, but don't take a job in a liquor store and refuse to handle liquor. If you're Jewish, I would recommend not taking jobs on shrimping boats or pork processing plants if you don't wanna handle shrimp or pork. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything and nobody is forcing a deli owner to sell bacon wrapped shrimp or a baker to sell wedding cakes, but if they so chose to do so, they had better not be discriminatory and refuse to sell to a certain group of people.

Huckabee is generally on board with that. He just wants special privileges for his own religion. He'd be aghast at letting Muslims get a job in a liquor store while refusing to handle alcohol. If a Mormon in a restaurant refused to let him drink coffee, he'd be the first to complain. He wants to let Christians get a job in a pharmacy while refusing to dispense birth control. He wants to let Christians work in a county clerk's office - being paid by the government, no less! - while deciding on their own which complete strangers should and shouldn't be allowed to marry.

So, in this context "religious liberty," please note this only applies to Christians, and Hindus better not try to outlaw beef, mean forcing your beliefs on others by rewriting constitutions and laws to make your beliefs law, and thereby punishing those who don't follow your beliefs.

Completely. Inapplicable. Mr. Huckabee. I can't marry some girl without it being a massive fraud. You can just, keep right on believing what you do without passing laws about it. Simple.

[Morrigi]

Well, we already knew Huckabee was an idiot. I'm hardly "progressive", either, but it's pretty obvious that he has no idea what he's going on about.

[ggamer]

Can someone tell me why gay people use the word "partner?" I get that it's an identity thing and that some people oscillate sexual identities like the most sexual jello but I don't get why, for example, a gay woman has to call her girlfriend her "partner." To me it just seems like it's awkward on purpose, idk though, someone probably understands this better than I do.

This seemed like the right thread, sorry if there's a thread I shoulda posted in that I missed or something.

[Vector]

It's partially in solidarity with non-binary people, for example, where "partner" makes more sense than "My genderqueerfriend."

[Arcvasti]

Partner is a nice gender-neutral way of referring to your significant other in two syllables.

FAKEEDIT: Yeah, Vector nailed it.