Author Topic: Politics in the US vs. politics in Europe  (Read 21594 times)

Simon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Reply #50 on: May 25, 2007, 08:45:52 AM
Ok, I'm invested now, I'll jump right in to this debate, so excuse me if I kick back now with a cup of tea and hold forth:

I stand up with Michel completely and say I find some of the key examples of American exceptionalism really weird, particularly in the way they effect the debate.  Gun Control/Abortion/Gay marriage/Death Penalty/Flag Burning - they all baffle and repulse me, this was the reason I blew up at the tolerance debate.  These issues get a massive amount of air-space in the US, you guys really care about them, but by comparison in the EU these issues just don't get any traction at all, honestly...  Take a look at this extremely minor BBC news article:

The BBC on the liberalisation of abortion in Portugal

There is a "debate" attached to this piece, and a glancing look will show that about 50% of the people who cared enough to pay comment were non-Europeans.  As you can see, the EU is mostly liberal about it, but Malta, Poland, Ireland and Spain are all pretty illiberal.  And yet there is no pan-European pro-abortion coalition, and it's left almost entirely down to a national political level.  The EU does not get involved, and no-one asks them to.  Anyway, I respect Steve on this and I don't want to wade into a big debate on abortion, I just wanted to point out the most blatant example of the EU really not caring about an American issue.

When I sit down and think about it, I think a lot of the reason for this is that it is government's and elected officials who decide what issues are "European Level" issues, as opposed to national level.  In the US there is a national level media (something completely lacking in the EU) that lobbies on these social issues, whereas EU level lobbying is almost entirely economic/national politics.  This means the US-wide media drives these issues up to the top of the political debate, and they end up as federal. In Britain almost no-one considers themselves to have any right (or reason) to have an opinion on the Irish abortion question.  Further, because we speak so many different languages, it's not really possible to have a pan-European media-debate on the issue in any coherent way.  While in parts of the US where democracy would lead to an abortion ban, New Englanders/West Coasters feel a real investment in the issue.  For me, and where I am probably with the Daily Kos on this, is that these issues never go away, in which they are very similar to Europe's Secession issues (I am near universally opposed to secession).  They drive the debate for decades, and they contaminate all of politics with the extreme polarisation they cause.  I find the way American's discuss Abortion (and the way the Scots discuss Secession) utterly toxic.  On the other hand, I'm not a citizen of your country, so I only see the effect on the debate, not on people's lives.

Quote
this is not business as usual, this is history happening on our doorstep - but very quietly...

Very true--and the Euro is the new Dollar for the world.   How about: The European Union is occupied with serious issues of the day, such as expansion and consolidation of it's Union, and forming what is in effect a single Federal "country"  which is larger more populous and diverse than the United States, and this activity fully satisfies everyone's need for politics, whereas the more complacent United States is content to "fiddle with the deck chairs on the Titanic" by debating non-issues as it declines as a superpower?   ;D

This on the other hand is dead wrong... Because the fact is most Europeans don't even notice what is happening to the state of the union.  The vast majority of people in my country couldn't find Romania on a map, let alone Moldova or Macedonia.  and almost no-one pays attention to the ins and outs of EU accession and integration.  This goes back to the issue of a pan-European debate/media, because it doesn't exist.  I'm not sure if I consider this a good or a bad thing, the lack of a debate means that much of the bile of self-interest/gossip politics is kept isolated at a national level, whereas the EU level of politics can pretty much get on with doing what it's doing.  The problem is this leads to a lot of mis-understanding and a pretty huge lack of accountability, and people get pretty angry about it.  You only have to mention the words: Russia (particularly gas), Turkish Accession, EU Constitution and Agricultural Subsidies in a room full of disparate Europeans to cause a god-awful fight.  In most European countries, because the actual progress on a supra-national level is invisible (no-one notices) then what is seen is the minutae of a body that isn't accountable to the national debates (and secession demonstrates just how nationalist the EU is) and people get angry.

Mention the Euro to a Brit/Swede and you wont hear an analysis of whether it is in our economic interests, but a national level view on keeping the pound/krona.

If Europe could manage to hold a pan-European debate I imagine it could be every bit as caustic as it is in America, the south of Europe is predominantly Catholic/Orthodox Christian and this plays a much stronger role in their politics than in the central north where Protestantism/The Enlightenment emerged and which are predominantly agnostic.  Financial debates would smash between the rich West and the poor East.  Integrationist debates would riot between the original seven nations and Britain/Scandinavia would get a kicking for their fundamentally exceptionalist views.  But these debates don't happen, because we are divided by language, and because of this no-one feels the need to force the other side to accept their view.

So yeah, my two cents in this is that it comes down to Europe's status as a quasi-confederacy and America's status as a federal state.. With the added effect of different languages isolating the debates to a national level, while people generally trust the supra-state to get on with doing what it's doing.  I guess what I'm saying is that the EU represents histories grandest attempt to take the politics out of politics.  The media continues to do the job of checking the government for corruption, but it cannot force the government to take sides on wedge issues, because there is no single individual to lobby, and no executive powerful enough to force it through.  It's democratic accountability (people still vote for their representatives) but people don't actually follow what their representatives are doing.  Is politics without the politics a good idea?

When I talk politics, I always go for the systematic features, because they are the easiest to analyse.  But I think there is more to America/Europe differences than just political/media systems...  I think there is much to be said for how people individually view the world in both sides of the pond...  Because while the EU lent on many countries over some of these issues (No capital punishment is a criteria for EU accession), others just happened because Europeans are in general agreement on it.  The EU has made very few moves on Gun Control on a supra-national level, but nonetheless it doesn't feature in everyday life in the EU in any way like it does in the US.  A good example would be how on almost all these issues Canada shares something approaching an EU viewpoint, but it's not at all due to European political influence, and comes down to similarities of culture.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2007, 11:29:19 AM by Simon »



Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #51 on: May 25, 2007, 12:05:13 PM
Simon -

A couple of questions.  You've used some vocabulary that I'm not familiar with, and though the context is clear, I'm a little hung up on the particulars.

What did you mean by "Second Vermont Republic and Conch Republics"?  I thought maybe you were talking about Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands.  Then I decided maybe you were talking about Hawaii (but Hawaii is a state), then finally I decided I didn't actually know wtf you were talking about and I should just ask.

Twice you've used the word "exceptionalism", once referring to America and once referring to Britain, and I'm not sure what you mean by it.  Could you elucidate?

Can you give a (very) basic rundown on the requirements for EU admission?  I'd heard the no death penalty thing before, and I've also heard some stuff about agricultural normalizations (removal of tariffs and sanitary rules, in particular) and economic requirements, but I'm a little shady on what entering countries must adhere to.  Are there any EU specific human rights declarations that all parties are signatory to?

It'd be interesting, also, to hear from someone pro-secessionist.  Any Basques in the room?  America's secession issues were decidedly solved during the civil war.  As an American I find it hard to understand the country splintering thing, especially in places that weren't artificially nationalized by the Soviets.  Sometimes in the red/blue debate you hear blue state folks talking/joking about jetissoning red states because they're an overall drain on the economy.  It's not serious.  The blue states cannot form a viable country.  (Then again, I don't believe Quebec could form a viable country, but that doesn't stop their secessionist movement).  In general, I believe Americans think the sum of our states is greater than the individual parts and would never again dream of splitting it up.  So, in a sense, the secessionist disputes are kind of like watching a train wreck for us (just as some of the other debates seem to be for you).

As I said before, I think discussions of immigration and race relations would probably find lots of parallels in both the U.S. and Europe, though I notice no one has yet taken me up on explaining immigration questions and issues in their own European countries and/or in the EU.

Addendum:  I think that refusing to discuss an issue because it will never go away is bogus reasoning.  Poverty, war, human trafficking and tyranny never seem to go away, but I don't think because of that the topics are not worth addressing.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2007, 12:31:50 PM by Anarkey »

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


Michael

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Reply #52 on: May 25, 2007, 12:15:16 PM
Quote
The problem is this leads to a lot of mis-understanding and a pretty huge lack of accountability, and people get pretty angry about it.

Simon, you can't really have it both ways--if people in Europe don't care about the EU, losing the pound for the Euro, admitting Turkey and allowing Turks free access to travel and live in Europe, if they are really totally oblivious to it all, then how is it they are getting angry?  And do they suffer their anger in silence or talk about it?  (Which was my point--you DO talk about it).

I do consider England a special case, because it has always stood somewhat apart from Europe, and as the progenitor of America, has some special personality quirks it passed on to America: Much more puritanical, sexually, (even named after a Queen: Victorianism) a bit more imperial (wasn't that long ago it had it's own empire) and so more an intermediate case between Europe of today and America (hence that old "special relationship').  That England could still manage to mount a sex scandal 50 years ago doesn't mean it matters much in France today.  

***

Heinlein once wrote that "Romantic Times call for practical people" --one of the ironies he observed in life.

When people devote their lives to arcane "isms" that have no practical significance--flag burning, gay marriage and in general, meddling with how other people live their lives--it is a sure sign they have too much time on their hands.  In a Maslow sense, all their practical needs are satisfied: they have plenty of shelter, food, safety, all the things a life requires.  It is really a reaction to boredom, and a sort of hobby.  Practical issues of survival trump those things instantly.    Practical issue abound in Romantic times.
 


« Last Edit: May 25, 2007, 12:26:13 PM by Michael »



ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #53 on: May 25, 2007, 12:16:57 PM
There is a secessionist movement in the state of Vermont.
http://www.alternet.org/story/50056/?page=1

IIRC, there are secessionist movements in about 15 other states as well (including California).
They are all very small, but the fact that they even exist is a bit startling. 

I think a lot of it is a combination of anti-Bushism and the ability of the internet to allow dispersed people with similar ideas to find each other.

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Simon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Reply #54 on: May 25, 2007, 12:23:19 PM
Anarkey -

Simon -

A couple of questions.  You've used some vocabulary that I'm not familiar with, and though the context is clear, I'm a little hung up on the particulars.


Sorry, about that... I find this a really interesting topic, and so I wrote something a bit beyond a forum post.. I'll probably adapt it and stick it on my blog today,  Excuse me if the discussion was a bit too heavy on details that only someone who'd studied Europe's structures would have a handle on.



What did you mean by "Second Vermont Republic and Conch Republics"?  I thought maybe you were talking about Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands.  Then I decided maybe you were talking about Hawaii (but Hawaii is a state), then finally I decided I didn't actually know wtf you were talking about and I should just ask.


I didn't think of the issues you mentioned, but the only examples I could come up with for Secessionist movements in the US are The Conch Republics (A joke movement by the Florida Keyes in the - I think - 80's to declare themselves independant of Florida due to a "border" florida imposed on them).  The Second Vermont Republic is a current movement in a similar vein, by people sick of the US gov.  Neither were intended to be the least bit serious (as far as I can tell).


Twice you've used the word "exceptionalism", once referring to America and once referring to Britain, and I'm not sure what you mean by it.  Could you elucidate?


There's a wiki article on the topic somewhere... Basically America sometimes stands outside global debates, in exactly the same way that Britain stands outside EU debates...  Some have suggested that this is self-reinforcing.  Being perceived as a big enough fish to stand outside gives that country a degree of freedom that other's don't possess.

There, sorry for going off on one like I'd eaten a dictionary...  I'll respond to the rest of your comments later in the day, little busy now.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2007, 03:43:48 PM by Simon »



Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #55 on: May 25, 2007, 12:26:56 PM
I'm giving you all uncharitable readings at this point, because I find this conversation really frustrating. I'm sure that there's a lot of common ground, but I can't really deal with the framing here -- "real" issues versus "unimportant" issues.

I mean, the thing is, I agree with it. Gay rights are polarizing; they don't hurt anyone; it's an issue that's been used to whip up Republican base support.

But calling it a non-issue -- which, you know, Frank does in _What's the Matter with Kansas_ too, where he dismisses the whole thing as a culture war -- is really insulting to the people whose lives are actually affected.

This is one of those places where I think the conflation between opinions on extreme ends of the continuum is really damaging. People on one side are arguing to - for instance - stop gay marriage, when there's no injury to them whatsoever in allowing it to happen. People on the other side want to be able to see their partners in the hospital after grievous bodily injury.

To conflate both sides as equally ridiculous is, itself, really problematic. (And I do understand there are lots of reasons why we have this tendency in conversation: Durkheim's tyranny of the majority, the Overton window, the dominant (American) cultural metaphor of democratic-vote-as-moral-good which infects our vocabulary and tends to trump the idea that minority rights deserve protection from the majority, the concept of debate as an intellectualized exercise rather than something that affects real people, attempts to preserve civility in environments like this which lead to wanting to deal with opinions in a kind of mathematical away so that nothing sounds particularly offensive... and so on.)

Anyway, I'm off to Wiscon, and I also need a break, so I will probably enjoy those things simultaneously. May your conversation be fruitful.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2007, 12:37:04 PM by palimpsest »



Simon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Reply #56 on: May 25, 2007, 01:10:24 PM
Hello guys,

I really really didn't intend that one to come out as a landmine...  Honestly.  I was actually far more interested in discussing the minutae of how the EU works, than discussing the American debate.  But, in brief response to the previous comments:

I think the details of the Culture War have been discussed elsewhere pretty well... But to put it simply: I consider that at a certain point the effect on society of the discussion can be worse than the effect of the polarising issue.  I think that in many cases there is a significant separation between the issue, and the effect that issue has on politics.  In the case of the American Culture Wars - I think these wars are revolting.  If I were effected by the issues, I would care passionately, and I am pro-gay rights, pro-abortion, etc etc etc.  But I'm not talking about the issues, I'm talking about the culture war.  What I was getting at in my previous discussion tho, was that I think these are an issue because America is a federal state.  Without Roe V Wade, half of the south would go anti-abortion, and people would have to go to California to get one... Just like the Irish come to Britain to get one.  And no-one would care.

This is not intended as a criticism of the US, It was intended as an observation of the differences between how politics works in our countries..  I'll try to come up with another substantive post soon explaining this in a slightly less offensive way (really didn't expect the flak to be honest).

Addendum:

To be straight.. All countries have culture wars of some kind, because everyone cares about the nature of what people are doing in their community, and a national level media does whip these things up.  In Britain people fight tooth and nail on ASBOs (don't even ask, its a legal way of forcing your neighbour to behave unwritten laws), battle titanically about other peoples diets, smoking, CCTV against young hooligans... This is all social engineering, and the wonderful thing about the EU is it is completely kept out of social engineering... That's the point I was trying to get at...  Social engineering is necessary, but it should be (as much as possible) kept at the lowest possible tier of government.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2007, 01:17:34 PM by Simon »



Listener

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • I place things in locations which later elude me.
    • Various and Sundry Items of Interest
Reply #57 on: May 25, 2007, 01:38:30 PM

It happens not infrequently in intra-liberal conversation, though, that someone will suggest that gay marriage and abortion aren't as important as other issues, and should be conceded to the conservatives. I think Kos suggested during the last election that we should give up on abortion altogether.

(I was looking for a place to quote from.  This is probably the best I could come up with.)

There's another podcast I listen to where the host just went through an abortion.  I left her an audio comment telling her that even though I am pro-life, I respect her decision even though I disagree with it.

I think a fair amount of pro-life people are in that camp.  At least, I hope they are.  I hope they're willing to stand up and say "I believe what I believe, but your beliefs don't directly harm me, so I'm going to tell you I disagree and then let you do what you believe."

I worry that the religious basis for many of the polarizing arguments (gay marriage and abortion are the biggies) is preventing otherwise-at-least-partly-intelligent people from having a real debate about the issues.  And the politicians have to dumb it down so much for the ignorant masses that the rest of us who can form and defend a coherent opinion get lost in the shuffle.

Also, I find it interesting that the people who are the loudest proponents of gay marriage and abortion being legalized are some of the loudest proponents of taking away other forms of choice, like school choice, some free speech (ie: the religious kind), and in Joe Lieberman's case (at least, back in the late 90s) the choice to play violent video games.

What a dichotomous political clime we live in.

"Farts are a hug you can smell." -Wil Wheaton

Blog || Quote Blog ||  Written and Audio Work || Twitter: @listener42


Michael

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Reply #58 on: May 25, 2007, 02:46:54 PM
(Puts on Moderator Hat)

People are locking onto abortion again.

We need to chill just slightly.  No one in this thread has said anything against anyone's civil liberties.  The topic was "why are certain things a big deal in one country and non-issues in others".

Since no one is being attacked, no one needs be defensive. 

That other conversations on other forums had something else, or went somewhere else, should not be directly germane to this topic or forum.   

Please try not to start yet another argument over abortion, and keep it in some way related to cross cultural comparisons.

Thank you.

(Takes off Moderator Hat but leaves it nearby)


Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #59 on: May 25, 2007, 03:22:20 PM
When people devote their lives to arcane "isms" that have no practical significance--flag burning, gay marriage and in general, meddling with how other people live their lives--it is a sure sign they have too much time on their hands.  In a Maslow sense, all their practical needs are satisfied: they have plenty of shelter, food, safety, all the things a life requires.  It is really a reaction to boredom, and a sort of hobby.  Practical issues of survival trump those things instantly.    Practical issue abound in Romantic times.

I have to agree with palimpsest on this, it sounds like privilege talk.  Gay marriage isn't about white, straight males therefore it is abstract and the preoccupation of people with nothing better to do?

I was with you on flag burning/sex scandals being abstract questions but gay marriage?  Just because it doesn't directly apply to you doesn't mean it's insignificant.  Just because it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it doesn't have real day-to-day effects on the lives of others.  And while I'd prefer to stay out of the reproductive rights end of the argument since you specifically requested it and I'm actually more interested in the minutiae of the EU just like Simon, I am obligated to state that I find it offensive that someone without a uterus is suggesting this is an "abstract" problem with no real world consequences, and positioning themselves as the rational member of the discussion while doing so ("not devoted to arcane 'isms'"). 

So, you know, if you're NOT saying that gay marriage and abortion have no real world effects and are useless mental exercises, now would be a good time to explicitly say so.

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #60 on: May 25, 2007, 03:39:34 PM

There's a wiki article on the topic somewhere... Basically America sometimes stands outside global debates, in exactly the same way that Britain stands outside EU debates...  Some have suggested that this is self-reinforcing.  Being perceived as a big enough fish to stand outside gives that country a degree of freedom that other's don't possess.

Ah, see, if you'd just said Manifest Destiny (yes, everything I know I learned from Schoolhouse Rock), I'd have known instantly what you were talking about.  Thanks for the link and clarification.

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #61 on: May 25, 2007, 03:56:30 PM
Ah, see, if you'd just said Manifest Destiny (yes, everything I know I learned from Schoolhouse Rock), I'd have known instantly what you were talking about.  Thanks for the link and clarification.


Conjunction junction
What's your function?

....sorry had a schoolhouse rock flashback
(owning the DVD's will do that :P )

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Michael

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Reply #62 on: May 25, 2007, 05:08:54 PM
Quote
So, you know, if you're NOT saying that gay marriage and abortion have no real world effects and are useless mental exercises, now would be a good time to explicitly say so.

Obviously the person who feels oppressed--or has fear of potentially being oppressed--feels strongly their rights are, or may be,  potentially violated.  This is a valid concern.  But what is the motivation of the oppressor?  Why do they care what you do with your body, who you have sex with, how does it affect them what you do?  Why do people have the time to devote to oppressing you? This is what I am speaking to.  The United States has become a nation of busybodies minding each others business, and that is due to an excess of disposable time.  The busybodies are equally pernicious on the left as the right--for example, throwing paint on people who wear certain valuable clothes becasue they are offended by fur.  "Being offended" is a national pastime. People feel it is acceptable to not accept other's choices.   I do view it as a symptom of a nation in decline.   

You asked me to clarify, so I did.  Anything further on this would be getting sucked into an off topic debate. 


ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #63 on: May 25, 2007, 05:20:30 PM
So do you think that people in the U.S. generally have more free time than people Europe?

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Michael

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Reply #64 on: May 25, 2007, 08:14:41 PM
Quote
So do you think that people in the U.S. generally have more free time than people Europe?


That is a very good question.  The people who work in America work pretty hard--officially less holidays, longer work week, and less vacation than most of Europe, but our "American Association of Retired Persons" has 34 Million Members at present.  There are still many stay at home spouses and under-employed types--usually on some form of disability.  Problem is the numbers are not good.  Our way of calculating unemployment statistics are wildly inacurrate and designed to make the number as small as possible, to make the economy and politicians look good--it is easier not to be counted as unemployed than counted.   

My argument is that meddlers get to be meddlers becasue all their basic needs are met and they have free time to kill. With that in mind free time is not the only factor, Maslows hierarchy is.  Requires free time plus nothing personal to worry about or work on--this is when you start addressing abstractions.
As an example, my grandparents kept a small farm in addition to their other jobs--when they had Sunday Chicken they had to kill the bird and clean it first.  My mother didn't have a farm, but kept a Garden.  I do none of these things, and pay someone to mow my lawn.  Each generation worked, but I have tons more disposable time. 
« Last Edit: May 25, 2007, 08:27:36 PM by Michael »



Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #65 on: May 25, 2007, 10:10:17 PM
I've been trying hard to be good here and not say anything that could be construed as inflammatory, fomenting, insulting or otherwise bad, but I feel like I really need to say something in defense at this point.  Between Anarkey, Michael and Palimpsest, I and people who share my beliefs have been handily characterized as bigoted, misogynistic oppressors.  There have been lots of examples.  Here's one concise enough to quote:

But what is the motivation of the oppressor?  Why do they care what you do with your body, who you have sex with, how does it affect them what you do?  Why do people have the time to devote to oppressing you? This is what I am speaking to.  The United States has become a nation of busybodies minding each others business, and that is due to an excess of disposable time. 

You can say whatever you want (free speech and all) but you should be aware that you do not understand at all what motivates people like me to be, for instance, opposed to abortion.  You don't seem to grasp my motivation or my thinking on these topics.  You ask, Michael, what motivates the "oppressor," which means me, in this case, but I know that if I give you my simple, honest answer, you will take reflexive offense and won't even listen.  I would encourage you to at least try to understand where your opposition is coming from instead of dismissing everyone you don't understand as a "busybody."

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Michael

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Reply #66 on: May 26, 2007, 03:36:44 AM
Mr. Tweedy, I did not identify you as an oppressor, nor did I think of you when I typed what I did.  I tried to be as balanced as possible and took pains to point out other abstract examples not at all related to abortion so as not to engage in yet another useless internet flame war about abortion. The mention of that word is a red flag that brings intense hatred from both sides.  That I labelled it a useless discussion was enough to bring outrage, but useless it is.  Pro-choice believe in pro-choice for deeply held beliefs of freedom.  Pro-life believe in pro-life for deeply held values of the sanctity of life--these are terminal human values which are essentially immutable--it is in your basic personalities and was set in stone by late adolescence.  They will never agree with you, you will never agree with them.  Shouting at each other about it provides only heat never light.         

It is the policy of the owner of this board that this not go there, which is why I am trying not to let it go there.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2007, 03:38:31 AM by Michael »



Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #67 on: May 26, 2007, 11:29:21 AM
Obviously the person who feels oppressed--or has fear of potentially being oppressed--feels strongly their rights are, or may be,  potentially violated.  This is a valid concern.

You asked me to clarify, so I did.  Anything further on this would be getting sucked into an off topic debate. 


Good enough for me.  I'm no longer offended.  Thanks for clarifying.  Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion of EU minutiae (I apologize for the thread derail).

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #68 on: January 27, 2008, 10:01:37 PM
Necromance!

Since the Politics in Britain thread has had a bit of play, I want to see if anyone has anything more to add to this discussion, or if someone new wants to join in.

Also, there's an election on over here that will cost about $2.5 billion (Presidential+Congressional+States, Source: BMJ), which would probably pay for most of the elections in Europe.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2008, 10:06:10 PM by Heradel »

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3906
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #69 on: January 28, 2008, 01:15:57 AM
If I ever move to another country, it'll probably be Australia.  It's a nice place to live, and it has Sean McMullen and the girl who runs ifeelmyself.com (NSFW URL), and it's close to New Zealand as well.  Plus, I don't think it has a lot of really "important" nuclear targets, so if we get hit with a nuclear winter, it's more likely that good chunks of Australia will still be standing.  At least, I think so.

OBSF: On the Beach by Nevil Shute.

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising