Forums » Off-Topic
Lecter, I really hope you're joking. Ireland killing the EU treaty is a Very Bad Thing.
Why is it ever a bad thing for an independent nation to remain independent, and refuse to give up its sovereignty to another power who may or may not have its best interests in mind?
I second that: Way to go Ireland. While they're refusing to give up the independence they fought for, we're giving enemy combatants constitutional rights. I've never had to be embarrassed to be an American before, I hope that day doesn't come. It seems we're on that path.
Sorry slime, I haven't looked at this thread in a long time. It seems to me that the only reason Obama has gotten this far (other than his ability to say nothing better than anybody) is that enough high-power Democrats saw in him a way to finally be free of the Clintons. So he's being pushed through, since he's supposedly untouchable because of his race, and he is being taken advantage of by his own party. You hear Hillary talk about a "Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy," but we Republicans can't even agree these days on what conservative means. But with the Democrats, it seems everything has connections back to George Soros. Including the guy who has the "tangential" job of picking Obama's VP.
I second that: Way to go Ireland. While they're refusing to give up the independence they fought for, we're giving enemy combatants constitutional rights. I've never had to be embarrassed to be an American before, I hope that day doesn't come. It seems we're on that path.
Sorry slime, I haven't looked at this thread in a long time. It seems to me that the only reason Obama has gotten this far (other than his ability to say nothing better than anybody) is that enough high-power Democrats saw in him a way to finally be free of the Clintons. So he's being pushed through, since he's supposedly untouchable because of his race, and he is being taken advantage of by his own party. You hear Hillary talk about a "Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy," but we Republicans can't even agree these days on what conservative means. But with the Democrats, it seems everything has connections back to George Soros. Including the guy who has the "tangential" job of picking Obama's VP.
I just circumvent my embarrassment of this country as a whole by treating every state outside of New York as the US, and New York as a separate country. Hell, New York City could count as a separate country.
Proud to be a New Yorker. Our governor's blind.
Proud to be a New Yorker. Our governor's blind.
One word: Cascadia. A North-westerner can only dream.
Chaos, I disagree. The concerned Irish did not vote against the treaty because they could perceive that their sovereignty was in danger (they, unnecessarily, proved it was not by killing the treaty), but mostly because the Irish government failed to show the country's inhabitants why it would have been beneficial not only to the EU (and as a member of that club, Ireland should strive to support it, not jeopardize it), but to the country and its inhabitants as well. What they did was effectively cause a substantial identity crisis for the EU, and that is a Very Bad Thing, no matter where you're standing.
I'm not saying that this treaty is the be-all and end-all and the panacea for all our ailments in Europe, far from it. The criticism against it is well-founded and should be heeded. However, I think it was shot down primarily due to ignorance and would have brought more advantages than disadvantages, contrary to what the negative voices say.
I'm not saying that this treaty is the be-all and end-all and the panacea for all our ailments in Europe, far from it. The criticism against it is well-founded and should be heeded. However, I think it was shot down primarily due to ignorance and would have brought more advantages than disadvantages, contrary to what the negative voices say.
I don't know the details of the treaty, and I'm not going to devote a lot of time to this. The whole thing seems like Big Government getting bigger. I would be worried that an organization like this would only lend legitimacy to any group of countries trying to bully another into adopting policies that may not be in their best interests. Even a treaty that seems to be overall a good thing can definitely be a step in the wrong direction. Governments tend to grow, not shrink, and the size of government is measured in how restrictive it is of its citizens.
Just glancing at this thing (like I said, it's not worth my time to do more than that) there's a very vague statement that would worry me if I were in the EU, and that is the one stating that combating climate change is a goal of the treaty. How in hell can a government stop a billions of years old force of nature? Man has never affected global climate before, and he isn't now. If the EU forces its members to waste billions of dollars on an imaginary threat, that money is not available to address real, solvable local problems, environmental and otherwise. The real reason to put that provision in the treaty is wealth distribution. This allows government-appointed scientists (whose pay depends on their believing in anthropogenic global warming) to declare that such-and-such a nation's carbon footprint is a danger to the world, and they get to tax that nation as much as they want, and the pressure of pretty much the entire world will be on them to pay up. It's socialistic wealth redistribution, plain and simple; and it's this aspect of "climate change" that keeps the scam going. It's frightening to me how eager such people are to silence the opposition. Al Gore in particular still won't participate in a debate, which is why he'll never run for president again. He'd have to address every blatant lie in his movie.
toshiro, you unwittingly said something very important: "The concerned Irish did not vote against the treaty because they could perceive that their sovereignty was in danger (they, unnecessarily, proved it was not by killing the treaty)." Here's how much danger Ireland's sovereignty is in: 46.6% vs. 53.4%. 4.4% more, and they'd have signed away another little piece of their nationality. These things happen in small, innocent-seeming steps, and by the time it's clear what's happened it's too late to fix it without a fight.
"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it is destroyed from within.”
- William James Durant.
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine.
Just glancing at this thing (like I said, it's not worth my time to do more than that) there's a very vague statement that would worry me if I were in the EU, and that is the one stating that combating climate change is a goal of the treaty. How in hell can a government stop a billions of years old force of nature? Man has never affected global climate before, and he isn't now. If the EU forces its members to waste billions of dollars on an imaginary threat, that money is not available to address real, solvable local problems, environmental and otherwise. The real reason to put that provision in the treaty is wealth distribution. This allows government-appointed scientists (whose pay depends on their believing in anthropogenic global warming) to declare that such-and-such a nation's carbon footprint is a danger to the world, and they get to tax that nation as much as they want, and the pressure of pretty much the entire world will be on them to pay up. It's socialistic wealth redistribution, plain and simple; and it's this aspect of "climate change" that keeps the scam going. It's frightening to me how eager such people are to silence the opposition. Al Gore in particular still won't participate in a debate, which is why he'll never run for president again. He'd have to address every blatant lie in his movie.
toshiro, you unwittingly said something very important: "The concerned Irish did not vote against the treaty because they could perceive that their sovereignty was in danger (they, unnecessarily, proved it was not by killing the treaty)." Here's how much danger Ireland's sovereignty is in: 46.6% vs. 53.4%. 4.4% more, and they'd have signed away another little piece of their nationality. These things happen in small, innocent-seeming steps, and by the time it's clear what's happened it's too late to fix it without a fight.
"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it is destroyed from within.”
- William James Durant.
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine.
You apparently fail to perceive the repercussions of this referendum. Since you decided you are not going to spend more time to gain a deeper understanding of the subject, I'll leave it at that and just hope that someday, you will see clearer.
The problem, toshiro, is that I have work, homework, and politics that affect me more directly in the U.S. (not that world politics aren't super important to the U.S., too), not to mention trying to find time to play VO. I just don't want you to think it's due to apathy that I'm not going to parse the Lisbon Treaty.
What I see is a little guy barely saying no to Big Government, and I'm happy about that for now but fear it's only temporary.
If only Republicans would remember they're supposed to be against Big Government, too, in time to kick out McCain (who is not a Republican) and nominate an actual conservative.
What I see is a little guy barely saying no to Big Government, and I'm happy about that for now but fear it's only temporary.
If only Republicans would remember they're supposed to be against Big Government, too, in time to kick out McCain (who is not a Republican) and nominate an actual conservative.
Tosh: I'm not joking, and the sooner the EU falls apart, the happier I'll be. While it may be too useful a conglomeration to ever perish entirely, I'd love to see a few certain countries say "screw this multi-national government thing, we're going back to being soverign powers," and break away. Ireland would be nice, but I can think of a few others, too.
Hear, hear. And the U.N. with it.
So if the US was to break apart, that would be ok, too? Because, you know, I'd love to see a few certain countries say "screw this multi-national government thing". Yeah, really.
And yes, I am aware that the US is different from the EU in that the EU has a history entirely different from the former, is a different form of state et cetera. Your statement is still quite idiotic. Do you even realize that one of the EU's aims is to bring stability (if possible, economical, political and social) to the former satellite countries? Surely the US cannot object to stability. Oh, wait. MIC. Sorry, I forgot. And I also forgot that you are in favour of its existence and consequences and myopic vision.
And yes, I am aware that the US is different from the EU in that the EU has a history entirely different from the former, is a different form of state et cetera. Your statement is still quite idiotic. Do you even realize that one of the EU's aims is to bring stability (if possible, economical, political and social) to the former satellite countries? Surely the US cannot object to stability. Oh, wait. MIC. Sorry, I forgot. And I also forgot that you are in favour of its existence and consequences and myopic vision.
You bring up an interesting analogy. You do realize, of course, how reluctant many states were to join the union? There was a pressing need for unity at that time, considering the alternative of continuing to be exploited by Europe. It was a miracle they were even able to come together enough to fight the British (don't bring up France, they were hoping to take advantage of us), considering no state wanted to send its militias past its own borders.
Their fears at the thought of joining a union were justified. There was great need for a strong central government, as there always is in time of war, but they'd just thrown off the shackles of an oppressive government and weren't eager to make a new one. Who ever heard of a government shrinking in power? It is in the nature of government to grow and become increasingly restrictive. That's the basis of the debate over the Bill of Rights. Some people thought if it wasn't included there was nothing to stop the government from infringing on those rights (as if it wasn't trying anyway). Others thought if it was included that it would easily be assumed that anything not in it was fair game for the government. We have definitely seen excesses from our government. Withholding income tax, increasing gun control ensuring that only criminals have guns, etc. etc. even including this recent legislation signed by Bush to dictate what light bulbs we can and can't buy.
If it could be guaranteed, without any doubts ever, that a multinational government would be non-intrusive, non-restrictive of personal freedoms, and always act in the best interests of all its members, then I would gladly be a part of it, and encourage others such as Ireland to be, too. It doesn't happen that way. I'm all in favor of European nations coming together by making trade agreements, etc., but I'm against any centralized government, no matter how weak or seemingly benign, because these things always grow and will not always be benign. This is the same reason oppose the U.N., except the U.N. has a track record of bullying nations like Israel while making deals with terrorists, while the E.U. is fairly new.
And what's this about myopic vision and MIC (military-industrial complex?). You call a strong U.S. military myopic, while I say a weak one is equally short-sighted. Don't forget we prevented a nukular war by out-producing our rival in nukes and bankrupting them. And whatever you say about "Star Wars," it worked perfectly by not having to be tested, it was a great bluff. I am definitely a fan of "big stick" diplomacy, and I don't' understand why people think if we lay down arms so will Ahmedinejad. Iran's stated goal is to nuke Israel (and they're not fond of us either, and not because of anything we've done), and even if no one ever even looks at Ahmedinejad funny ever again (or ever did), he will only be unopposed in his plan to nuke Israel, because he believes that it's his duty to destroy Israel.
That was kind of rambling, but wasn't a random tangent, it's an example of the kind of thing that is being allowed by the U.N., and is why I distrust the idea of a multinational government. Ireland shouldn't have to give up it's nationality (which is what it would be doing eventually, in little steps like this one) to get along with Europe. We shouldn't have to bow to the U.N. and reduce our military strength to get along with the world. On the contrary, we should remain as strong as ever, and not apologize for what we believe in. I don't care if the world likes us or not, it's not worth compromising beliefs just to be liked.
Their fears at the thought of joining a union were justified. There was great need for a strong central government, as there always is in time of war, but they'd just thrown off the shackles of an oppressive government and weren't eager to make a new one. Who ever heard of a government shrinking in power? It is in the nature of government to grow and become increasingly restrictive. That's the basis of the debate over the Bill of Rights. Some people thought if it wasn't included there was nothing to stop the government from infringing on those rights (as if it wasn't trying anyway). Others thought if it was included that it would easily be assumed that anything not in it was fair game for the government. We have definitely seen excesses from our government. Withholding income tax, increasing gun control ensuring that only criminals have guns, etc. etc. even including this recent legislation signed by Bush to dictate what light bulbs we can and can't buy.
If it could be guaranteed, without any doubts ever, that a multinational government would be non-intrusive, non-restrictive of personal freedoms, and always act in the best interests of all its members, then I would gladly be a part of it, and encourage others such as Ireland to be, too. It doesn't happen that way. I'm all in favor of European nations coming together by making trade agreements, etc., but I'm against any centralized government, no matter how weak or seemingly benign, because these things always grow and will not always be benign. This is the same reason oppose the U.N., except the U.N. has a track record of bullying nations like Israel while making deals with terrorists, while the E.U. is fairly new.
And what's this about myopic vision and MIC (military-industrial complex?). You call a strong U.S. military myopic, while I say a weak one is equally short-sighted. Don't forget we prevented a nukular war by out-producing our rival in nukes and bankrupting them. And whatever you say about "Star Wars," it worked perfectly by not having to be tested, it was a great bluff. I am definitely a fan of "big stick" diplomacy, and I don't' understand why people think if we lay down arms so will Ahmedinejad. Iran's stated goal is to nuke Israel (and they're not fond of us either, and not because of anything we've done), and even if no one ever even looks at Ahmedinejad funny ever again (or ever did), he will only be unopposed in his plan to nuke Israel, because he believes that it's his duty to destroy Israel.
That was kind of rambling, but wasn't a random tangent, it's an example of the kind of thing that is being allowed by the U.N., and is why I distrust the idea of a multinational government. Ireland shouldn't have to give up it's nationality (which is what it would be doing eventually, in little steps like this one) to get along with Europe. We shouldn't have to bow to the U.N. and reduce our military strength to get along with the world. On the contrary, we should remain as strong as ever, and not apologize for what we believe in. I don't care if the world likes us or not, it's not worth compromising beliefs just to be liked.
Tosh, I'm against paternalism in all its disgusting forms. You want short term, myopic vision? Look no further than your partial justification for the EU's existance vis-a-via those "unstable" former satellite countries. You hope to bring them "economical, political and social" stability? On what--on whose--terms, especially as it pertains to social and political?
The whole MIC thing makes me chuckle (and my portfolio increase in value ;).
And I just randomly looked up and saw I'm sharing Manhattan with Moldy. Scary.
The whole MIC thing makes me chuckle (and my portfolio increase in value ;).
And I just randomly looked up and saw I'm sharing Manhattan with Moldy. Scary.
Yeah, scary to think I have to travel to this *lovely* island every day.
So if the US was to break apart, that would be ok, too? Because, you know, I'd love to see a few certain countries say "screw this multi-national government thing". Yeah, really.
Yes, it would be! I've said it at least once now! :D New York City and Long Island combined give almost twice as much in taxes as we get back in services and aid. We support the rest of the state.
So if the US was to break apart, that would be ok, too? Because, you know, I'd love to see a few certain countries say "screw this multi-national government thing". Yeah, really.
Yes, it would be! I've said it at least once now! :D New York City and Long Island combined give almost twice as much in taxes as we get back in services and aid. We support the rest of the state.
Just like the U.N. has only as much authority as the U.S. enforces, yet they are intent on crippling us.
Glad to see I'm not alone here. I'm also (no offense) glad I don't live in New York! I'll keep my Rocky Mountains.
Glad to see I'm not alone here. I'm also (no offense) glad I don't live in New York! I'll keep my Rocky Mountains.
Governments and any trace of capitalism or monetary importance never mixes very well and usually ends up messing with the little guy.
And PC, you said something about getting a real conservative to run for office and booting McCain out. Ever heard of Ron Paul?
And PC, you said something about getting a real conservative to run for office and booting McCain out. Ever heard of Ron Paul?
Blech. I agree with many things he says, but always think "what a little whiner." I don't think he'd be an effective and inspiring leader. I think he'll do better to stay in congress, voting against stuff. Also, he's stated that he wants us to give up in Iraq, and even Hillary understands why that would be a disaster (though she could never come right out and say it, it has to be spun in a way that makes Bush look bad and her responsible). Bob Barr looks better than Paul, but he also wants immediate withdrawal from Iraq, so no.
I was really rooting for Fred Thompson, but he was way too late to show he can be animated and really speak up. Maybe if he works on communicating and tries again. Once he was gone, Romney was the only conservative left who had any chance. I hope he runs again next time, when Hillary makes her final move against *shudder* President McCain (that's still my prediction). Then he dropped out. Bobby Jindal looks good, but he's not running.
I was really rooting for Fred Thompson, but he was way too late to show he can be animated and really speak up. Maybe if he works on communicating and tries again. Once he was gone, Romney was the only conservative left who had any chance. I hope he runs again next time, when Hillary makes her final move against *shudder* President McCain (that's still my prediction). Then he dropped out. Bobby Jindal looks good, but he's not running.
Hey, it *is* a lovely island, Moldy. My office looks right out on Governor's island and the statute of liberty, and North Cove marina is just a 10 minute walk for sailing... love it downtown.
I might hate life if stuck in midtown, though. And I pretend the world ends after 110th St.
I might hate life if stuck in midtown, though. And I pretend the world ends after 110th St.
The Financial District aint that nice. A few blocks north, sure... anything south of Wall Street is pretty meh :|
I believe Spider Robinson once stated the reason New Yorkers have such a shitty attitude is because the 'light at the end of the tunnel', for a New Yorker,
.....is New Jersey.
.....is New Jersey.