anyway, let's talk about how the EU is becoming the third soviet union with the Data Retention Directive
EDIT: Irond Will that is not how it works at all. Of course we're part of europe, but you can't really use "europe" as a group and area most of the time
eastern europe, central europe, the british isles, scandinavia are all very different from each other in alot of ways
EDIT EDIT: Inquisitor, fascism isn't extreme right in economy, it has "third way" economy. Golden middle ground, basically. Government-run capitalism. On the axis we could call anarchy-authority it's very much to the right, of course
Americans should not be allowed to say the word "europe"
they never use it right
Way to break out of the "condescending European" stereotype.
well they never fucking do!
you can't say "in europe they have x" like "in the us we have y"
Why can't you? Especially now with the EU, you're all just a bunch of member states.
the EU means polacks can work here freely and that there are limits to how one can fuck with the market. That's pretty much it.
Europe is not a homogenized entity at all. The EU doesn't change that. That seems to be another american misconception, that the EU resembles a United States of Europe. It really doesn't.
Besides, Norway isn't part of the EU proper.
Everyone has to bare their crosses.
New Zealand/australia
Canada/US
Norway/the rest of europe
:P
Americans should not be allowed to say the word "europe"
they never use it right
Way to break out of the "condescending European" stereotype.
well they never fucking do!
you can't say "in europe they have x" like "in the us we have y"
Why can't you? Especially now with the EU, you're all just a bunch of member states.
Try saying that Portugal has the same stuff as Estonia.
I'm not really suggesting that Europe has a unified culture or anything, but honestly the lengths that European countries will go to in order to try to except themselves from identity as "European" is just silly. The English - well, all of the British really - claim they are not European because they are an island and they kept their currency. Scandinavia considers themselves their own "thing" (but also like to exclude Finland kind of). The Spanish of course are too far west to be European and the same with the Portuguese. Eastern Europe, of course, is too young to really be part of "European" culture because of their isolation during the cold war and status as second-world countries.
Basically, all of Europe seems to see "Europe" as "Germany and maybe France".
They bitch and moan for 10 years that they have to change currencies every time they cross a border and show passports all the time. Then they get a unified currency and can pretty much freely cross borders like Americans can cross states, and they bitch and moan that everyone lumps them all together.
I don't like that ruling, but I can't disagree with it. I mean I don't know of anything in the constitution that should make it illegal.
Using a document that is written hundred of years ago before industrialization ever occurred seems to me to be a poor reference document to determine how our laws should interact with multinational corporations.
When the group had set out from JFK Airport the day before, it had not seemed like an especially friendly bunch. The first member I met, when I said it was nice to meet him, had shot me a challenging look and countered, “How do you know? I could be an axe murderer.” Fat-faced and bearded, he turned out to be a plaintiff's lawyer with a fondness for describing his clients' injuries in graphic, breathy detail (e.g., “The cops tasered a kid till they burnt the hair off his face”). Other attempts at small talk likewise fell flat until, finally, a few of the tour veterans—or “repeat offenders,” as one jokingly called himself—began to dispense advice. Some had been on as many as five of these trips before; at least two had brought home fiancées in the past, though they hadn't actually married. They promised that we, too, would surely become repeat offenders once we saw what was in store. “Remember,” said one silver-haired gent in a well-cut suit and polo shirt, “they've only been liberated for ten years. They're going through a social and sexual revolution like we went through in the 1970s.”
.....
Dan the Man nodded contentedly. “You see? I'm telling you, the camaraderie always ends up being a big part of this—I've had guys make half-million-dollar business deals on these trips,” he said. “Now, take everything you know about dating and throw it away. After a few days, you guys are going to become like American women! A woman you would have killed to have lunch with back in the U.S., she'll be wanting to go out with you, but you'll start noticing little faults—her ankles are too big, you don't like the shape of her earlobes. And you will throw her back, because you have so many choices.”
Yup, the men are pathetic and sexist and revolting. I wouldn't fuck 'em.
I wish there was more about the women, though.
It's all fucked up and quite sad, really.
I just feel the brides know what's going on there more clearly than the grooms. They're less deluded, which is why I feel less sorry for them.
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
Europe is not a homogenized entity at all. The EU doesn't change that. That seems to be another american misconception, that the EU resembles a United States of Europe. It really doesn't.
To be fair, that misconception is also becoming frequent within EU countries as well. The number of times on the run up to the second Lisbon treaty vote in Ireland i was told that "We're not the same as the Germans, why should be let the EU make us all the same!" was beyond silly.
I don't like that ruling, but I can't disagree with it. I mean I don't know of anything in the constitution that should make it illegal.
Using a document that is written hundred of years ago before industrialization ever occurred seems to me to be a poor reference document to determine how our laws should interact with multinational corporations.
I don't like that ruling, but I can't disagree with it. I mean I don't know of anything in the constitution that should make it illegal.
Using a document that is written hundred of years ago before industrialization ever occurred seems to me to be a poor reference document to determine how our laws should interact with multinational corporations.
Yeah, well, that's what the Supreme Court's job is. Judicial review does not include pulling entirely new amendments out of their asses.
Res on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
to my understanding it is the opposite of the free market, I.E. the government directly controls the economy and other aspects from a small central location.
Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong. What you are thinking about is either socialism (where the government directly controls the means of production), communism or totalitarianism.
Fascism doesn't have a pat definition. It is generally though of as somewhat totalitarian, culturally right-wing, nationalist. It meshes well with a free-ish market. Mussolini described fascism as (I am paraphrasing) the unification of the government and corporations.
I don't like that ruling, but I can't disagree with it. I mean I don't know of anything in the constitution that should make it illegal.
Using a document that is written hundred of years ago before industrialization ever occurred seems to me to be a poor reference document to determine how our laws should interact with multinational corporations.
Yeah, well, that's what the Supreme Court's job is. Judicial review does not include pulling entirely new amendments out of their asses.
And thus, we can disagree with their interpretation.
I don't like that ruling, but I can't disagree with it. I mean I don't know of anything in the constitution that should make it illegal.
Using a document that is written hundred of years ago before industrialization ever occurred seems to me to be a poor reference document to determine how our laws should interact with multinational corporations.
to my understanding it is the opposite of the free market, I.E. the government directly controls the economy and other aspects from a small central location.
Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong. What you are thinking about is either socialism (where the government directly controls the means of production), communism or totalitarianism.
Fascism doesn't have a pat definition. It is generally though of as somewhat totalitarian, culturally right-wing, nationalist. It meshes well with a free-ish market. Mussolini described fascism as (I am paraphrasing) the unification of the government and corporations.
Ok so then, this ruling is actually closer to fascism IF you support it!
Yeah, well, that's what the Supreme Court's job is. Judicial review does not include pulling entirely new amendments out of their asses.
Nah, depends if what kind of judge you are, actually. Historically we have had judges that have done just that, but we've also had judges that use the constitution as their basis for everything.
I don't like that ruling, but I can't disagree with it. I mean I don't know of anything in the constitution that should make it illegal.
Using a document that is written hundred of years ago before industrialization ever occurred seems to me to be a poor reference document to determine how our laws should interact with multinational corporations.
Yeah, well, that's what the Supreme Court's job is. Judicial review does not include pulling entirely new amendments out of their asses.
And thus, we can disagree with their interpretation.
I... I guess you can, if you don't know how to read or something.
Or if you know something about the constitution that I don't.
I don't like that ruling, but I can't disagree with it. I mean I don't know of anything in the constitution that should make it illegal.
Using a document that is written hundred of years ago before industrialization ever occurred seems to me to be a poor reference document to determine how our laws should interact with multinational corporations.
Yeah, well, that's what the Supreme Court's job is. Judicial review does not include pulling entirely new amendments out of their asses.
And thus, we can disagree with their interpretation.
I... I guess you can, if you don't know how to read or something.
Or if you know something about the constitution that I don't.
Um, not to be a jerk or anything, but where in the Constitution does it say "Multi national corporations should be treated as one individual?"
| Zinnar on most things | Avatar by Blameless Cleric
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
So I'm being chewed out right now by an old high school fling. She's pissed that by dating a younger woman I'm reducing the dating pool of eligible men for women in our age group. And pointing out that she's fulfilling a stereotype has not made her any happier.
I don't like that ruling, but I can't disagree with it. I mean I don't know of anything in the constitution that should make it illegal.
Using a document that is written hundred of years ago before industrialization ever occurred seems to me to be a poor reference document to determine how our laws should interact with multinational corporations.
Yeah, well, that's what the Supreme Court's job is. Judicial review does not include pulling entirely new amendments out of their asses.
And thus, we can disagree with their interpretation.
I... I guess you can, if you don't know how to read or something.
Or if you know something about the constitution that I don't.
Um, not to be a jerk or anything, but where in the Constitution does it say "Multi national corporations should be treated as one individual?"
Yeah, just because the constitution doesn't say they shouldn't do this doesn't mean it isn't a bad idea.
So I'm being chewed out right now by an old high school fling. She's pissed that by dating a younger woman I'm reducing the dating pool of eligible men for women in our age group. And pointing out that she's fulfilling a stereotype has not made her any happier.
What did any of those things you just said have to do with corporations how how they interact with the constitution Organ? Please try to stick to the topic at hand. :P
Inquisitor on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
So I'm being chewed out right now by an old high school fling. She's pissed that by dating a younger woman I'm reducing the dating pool of eligible men for women in our age group. And pointing out that she's fulfilling a stereotype has not made her any happier.
Tell her to find a younger man.
I suggested that. Apparently younger men aren't interested in relationships. I thought going cougar was the thing to do for women.
Thomamelas on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
the constitution is a skeleton that we base our government on. much like how the finger bones in mammals can be reworked to make flippers and wings, so too with the constitution.
Same basics, different skin stretched on it as things change and new interpretations are necessary.
to my understanding it is the opposite of the free market, I.E. the government directly controls the economy and other aspects from a small central location.
Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong. What you are thinking about is either socialism (where the government directly controls the means of production), communism or totalitarianism.
Fascism doesn't have a pat definition. It is generally though of as somewhat totalitarian, culturally right-wing, nationalist. It meshes well with a free-ish market. Mussolini described fascism as (I am paraphrasing) the unification of the government and corporations.
Ok so then, this ruling is actually closer to fascism IF you support it!
yes it is.
Right wing Americans like to howl about how the gummint is going to send its jack-booted thugs against their freedom-loving masses and subvert their precious free market, and in their beloved Nazi analogies, they are always the Jews trembling in basements.
But then you look at the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany, and it was the right-wing cultural populists, the well-armed, and the wealthy corporate interests that brought the fascists to power and joined in.
Irond Will on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Yup, the men are pathetic and sexist and revolting. I wouldn't fuck 'em.
I wish there was more about the women, though.
It's all fucked up and quite sad, really.
I just feel the brides know what's going on there more clearly than the grooms. They're less deluded, which is why I feel less sorry for them.
Well, they're doing something unpleasant to get out of poverty and starvation. I mean, when you look at the stuff people do to come to the West - drug dealing or hijacking or murder or whatever - I figure getting faux-married to some sad specimen of a guy isn't too terrible.
What did any of those things you just said have to do with corporations how how they interact with the constitution Organ? Please try to stick to the topic at hand. :P
Posts
EDIT: Irond Will that is not how it works at all. Of course we're part of europe, but you can't really use "europe" as a group and area most of the time
eastern europe, central europe, the british isles, scandinavia are all very different from each other in alot of ways
EDIT EDIT: Inquisitor, fascism isn't extreme right in economy, it has "third way" economy. Golden middle ground, basically. Government-run capitalism. On the axis we could call anarchy-authority it's very much to the right, of course
the entire world is stupid
Haaaaaaave you med Freud?
What can I say? :winky:
So basically, Europeans.
Belgium too.
Jacob, that article is already depressing me.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I think this is something we can all agree on.
Using a document that is written hundred of years ago before industrialization ever occurred seems to me to be a poor reference document to determine how our laws should interact with multinational corporations.
Third soviet union...
Ok, the first soviet union was the soviet union.
The second was...
Yup, the men are pathetic and sexist and revolting. I wouldn't fuck 'em.
I wish there was more about the women, though.
It's all fucked up and quite sad, really.
I just feel the brides know what's going on there more clearly than the grooms. They're less deluded, which is why I feel less sorry for them.
To be fair, that misconception is also becoming frequent within EU countries as well. The number of times on the run up to the second Lisbon treaty vote in Ireland i was told that "We're not the same as the Germans, why should be let the EU make us all the same!" was beyond silly.
The soviet union had a lot of data retention?
what the fuck
fuck
Yeah, well, that's what the Supreme Court's job is. Judicial review does not include pulling entirely new amendments out of their asses.
Yes you are wrong. What you are thinking about is either socialism (where the government directly controls the means of production), communism or totalitarianism.
Fascism doesn't have a pat definition. It is generally though of as somewhat totalitarian, culturally right-wing, nationalist. It meshes well with a free-ish market. Mussolini described fascism as (I am paraphrasing) the unification of the government and corporations.
And thus, we can disagree with their interpretation.
WOW.
That's amazing dumbness.
Ok so then, this ruling is actually closer to fascism IF you support it!
Nah, depends if what kind of judge you are, actually. Historically we have had judges that have done just that, but we've also had judges that use the constitution as their basis for everything.
Organ: What?
you have us beat with the USA PATRIOT act and the like
but we're getting there!
EDIT: The US might actually be approaching actual fascism with this. Try to ignore all the horrendous connotations that word has.
I... I guess you can, if you don't know how to read or something.
Or if you know something about the constitution that I don't.
Um, not to be a jerk or anything, but where in the Constitution does it say "Multi national corporations should be treated as one individual?"
Towards the end.
you just... we should just wing it, i guess?
i don't even know what the fuck to say
you enjoying your freedom of speech?
freedom from illegal searches and seizures?
freedom from cruel and unusual punishments?
i just
goddamnit
Yeah, just because the constitution doesn't say they shouldn't do this doesn't mean it isn't a bad idea.
Y'know, for a second you making a joke threw me, and so I looked up the constitution and read the parts at the end
What did any of those things you just said have to do with corporations how how they interact with the constitution Organ? Please try to stick to the topic at hand. :P
I know, right? I was like
I suggested that. Apparently younger men aren't interested in relationships. I thought going cougar was the thing to do for women.
Agreeing on the core principles and following the document to the letter even when it would act to undermine those principles are not the same.
more like
the constitution is a skeleton that we base our government on. much like how the finger bones in mammals can be reworked to make flippers and wings, so too with the constitution.
Same basics, different skin stretched on it as things change and new interpretations are necessary.
pleasepaypreacher.net
yes it is.
Right wing Americans like to howl about how the gummint is going to send its jack-booted thugs against their freedom-loving masses and subvert their precious free market, and in their beloved Nazi analogies, they are always the Jews trembling in basements.
But then you look at the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany, and it was the right-wing cultural populists, the well-armed, and the wealthy corporate interests that brought the fascists to power and joined in.
Well, they're doing something unpleasant to get out of poverty and starvation. I mean, when you look at the stuff people do to come to the West - drug dealing or hijacking or murder or whatever - I figure getting faux-married to some sad specimen of a guy isn't too terrible.
are you joking?