Firearms Control. Cultural Differences on the Issue.

This part of a comment motivated me to post this little thread:

BubbleBliss wrote:..........And let's consider the origin of the problem. If guns hadn't been so readily available in the United States, the gun black market would have never grown as strong as it is today. Now the response to the problem is to increase the factor that originally caused part of the problem.

It is, and has been, my contention that trying to "bridge the gap" so to speak, with folks from "across the Pond" on the issue, is a study in futility. "They" will never "understand", or "see" OUR (US Citizens FOR the 2nd Amendment's guarantee) POV, and surely we will never see THEIRS.

Having said this, IMO it still IS a "worthy" topic to "bash words" over, as perhaps people from "both sides" of the issue can MAYBE get a bit more understanding of the others' POV.

Due to a few of the "Base Issues" surrounding the causality of the "birthing" of this Nation, (The US) the right to keep and bare arms, was seen as a necessity. We were (at the time) mostly a "wild and untamed" vast wilderness, with a "perceived" future including a "Manifest Destiny". We were generally, a "hearty" people, who were VERY "self reliant"...we wanted/needed LITTLE "help" from outside forces...Our neighbors, if/when needed were enough.


K, understand all of that, we "fast forward" to today's time.

Due to many political factors, the "need" for the ability of the general & LAW ABIDING populous STILL remains in RE: to the 2nd. Amendment.

Do I think that there should be more "safety regulations" put in place RE: Hand guns in particular?

I say YES.

(This statement of mine, should not "offend", or "ruffle the feathers" of any of my Compatriots. That is of course, as long as they ARE "Law Abiding" citizens who own firearms.)

I do not pretend to fully understand the mindset of Europeans, (or citizens of the UK) BUT I have pretty good ideas as to the reasoning(s) behind those citizens, who agree with that areas stand on Gun Control.

In so far as our 2nd. Amendment's verbage RE: the citizen's right to defend themselves from the possible Tyranny of the Federal Government, I am a firm believer that this is STILL a "valid" point in Firearm ownership. In complete honesty, aside from very few examples, some citizens in this country, DO have access to many bits of technology, that would make any "uprising" that the citizenry would mount, MUCH stronger than any "insurgency" we have seen to date in Foreign countries.

NOW, on to the "Cultural Differences" in the way of "freedoms", or Governmental intrusion into citizen's everyday lives.

While the US is a CONFEDERATION of united STATES, and actually recently, there has been a resurgence of the "Sovereignty" cry FOR these states, we have seen the European Continent look to LIMIT this "Sovereignty" in terms of the EU's "Nation States".

Here in the US we see the "Push" for this same ideology change, in the form of the "Globalist".

K, seeing all of this, chewing on it a bit, I think that y'all will see, and perhaps understand a bit more, why the "2 sides" on this topic, (especially when talking about those OUTSIDE of the US) will never "come to an understanding".



Your thoughts?

The EU has not really limited the sovereignty of the individual nation-state. It has been proposed, but Germany was the main opponent to this because it would limit individual sovereignty.

As for the fact that the US never needed help from outside sources, I can only say that only a small number of European countries ever received aid from other countries except for when alliances were formed but even then, this was due to international conflicts, not internal conflicts.
If anybody has experience on being self-reliant and surviving, it's Europe. Europe's history has been filled with internal and external warfare.

As for the rest of the article, I don't really see how you explained the cultural differences. Europe isn't any less free than the US, one could argue the other way as a matter of fact.

I agree. This article demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Europe, Europeans and the EU. There is still the implication that we all live in semi-Communist soft tyrannies with "evil" Orwellian healthcare with very little in the way of actual freedoms. Americans creating parodies of Europe is still bullshit, but it has since stopped being entertaining bullshit. Now it is just pig ignorant.

The other issue here is of course that we constantly hear about supposed tyranny from the Federal government and how "arms" (however you might interpret that) are "necessary" in preventing such internal tyranny. I fail to see how any US government could act like a tyrant so I suggest this argument is a bit of a straw man, based on a parody of colonial-era Europe.

If gov't becomes too powerful, you'd see things happen like what happened in Venezuela. Some may think that's insane but it's not. Venezuela was a decent country with all the usual problems of any capitalist nation. I grew up with two kids who lived there and they said it wasn't much different than the USA. Of course, this was the mid/late 70's. Venezuela is a tyranny in it's early stages.

Now look at what Chavez has done to that country and it's freedoms. To say that it couldn't happen here is crazy. It can happen here. No, i'm not saying Obama is going to make that happen because i don't subscribe to that view like some. But it could happen. A government that's citizens aren't armed has nothing to fear. An armed citizenry would change that.

Point blank, it's a constitutional right here and nothing except an amendment repealing the 2nd will change that. May people like their guns. I know Dems and liberals who are gun owners and hunters along with the usual conservatives. It's only the hard left that wants them gone altogether. Other left wingers want limitations on who can have them. The far right thinks we should be able to own hand grenades.

But you have fail safes in your government system. The Senate rules and can impeach/force the resignation of the President. You have a Constitution and Bill of Rights. Did Venzuela have any of that? No, and neither did Iraq. Don't forget in the 1950s that it was a bustling centre of the middle east.

I can't see any "V for Vendetta" type government appearing over here or in the US.

Venezuela had a constitution prior to Chavez. Sure, it didn't have the protections we have. But i've watched over the years how our gov't has slowly and quietly done things that are unconstitutional with not a peep out of 99.8% of politicians. If you want to get technical about it, Bush and Congress violated the constitution with the Iraq and Afghan war. Clinton did the same with the Balkans. Vietnam and Korea were unconstitutional. Sure, people supported it but that doesn't change it.

I can name plenty of things that have been in violation over the years (and decades). Slowly, things change and not always for the good. This HC bill will be another unconstitutional venture. I know i'm going off-track a bit but i have to to make my point. At what point does this gov't stop with it's bullshit and abide by the constitution? It hasn't and it won't in the foreseeable future. Therefore, something happening like i theorized in my prior post is plausible.

This is the Libertarian side of me. Some like to confuse me with being a total conservative. You should read some of the writings by Dr. Ron Paul, congressman from Houston. He's a libertarian Republican. The GOP calls him Dr. No because he votes according to the constitution, not the GOP party heads wishes.

BubbleBliss wrote:The EU has not really limited the sovereignty of the individual nation-state.

Not yet, but looking into the costs to some Nation States, (say Scotland,) to be a member...and say looking at the PAY OUT to some, (say Spain,) "equity" for Nation States isn't really there now is it?

BubbleBliss wrote: It has been proposed, but Germany was the main opponent to this because it would limit individual sovereignty.

I'm aware of this. How old is the E.U. now? I wonder what the future holds.

BubbleBliss wrote:As for the fact that the US never needed help from outside sources, I can only say that only a small number of European countries ever received aid from other countries except for when alliances were formed but even then, this was due to international conflicts, not internal conflicts.

1) I was talking about the citizens of this country, post Revolution.

2) Ever heard of WW1...or WW2...or other more recent struggles in which UN "Peace Keepers" were used?

BubbleBliss wrote:If anybody has experience on being self-reliant and surviving, it's Europe. Europe's history has been filled with internal and external warfare.

And in recent history, (Post American Revolution again) Filled with external help in quelling these times of strife, AND dragging the entire world INTO strife.

BubbleBliss wrote:As for the rest of the article, I don't really see how you explained the cultural differences.

I do not try to EXPLAIN the cultural differences. (Read the post again...it's no article BTW, it's all me) I say, that DUE to cultural differences, folks from "across the pond" will never understand the reasoning of those here in my country, that SUPPORT our 2nd Amendment, and understand why, an armed & LAW ABIDING populous, has shown to drive down violent crime rates.

BubbleBliss wrote: Europe isn't any less free than the US, one could argue the other way as a matter of fact.

A matter for debate, to be sure.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I agree. This article demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Europe, Europeans and the EU.

It's no article, it's all me baby.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:There is still the implication that we all live in semi-Communist soft tyrannies with "evil" Orwellian healthcare with very little in the way of actual freedoms. Americans creating parodies of Europe is still bullshit, but it has since stopped being entertaining bullshit. Now it is just pig ignorant.

Humm, seems I hit a nerve? One could (as an American) react the same way, when folks from Europe, (or anywhere else with very strict firearms prohibition is in place, when they remark about our (the U.S.'s) firearms control laws...of course I'm referring to this comment:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Americans creating parodies of Europe is still bullshit, but it has since stopped being entertaining bullshit. Now it is just pig ignorant.

Just switch the names around sparky, and I'm sure you'll get my point.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:The other issue here is of course that we constantly hear about supposed tyranny from the Federal government and how "arms" (however you might interpret that) are "necessary" in preventing such internal tyranny. I fail to see how any US government could act like a tyrant so I suggest this argument is a bit of a straw man, based on a parody of colonial-era Europe.

You FAIL to see it!?

Executive orders, Presidential Decrees, etc.

Hell, even the bullshit way most of our legislation/legislators cater to lobby groups boarders on treason., The constitutional guarantee is there, and, (although I pray it never need be) will be used, when necessary.

TexasBlue wrote:
This is the Libertarian side of me. Some like to confuse me with being a total conservative. You should read some of the writings by Dr. Ron Paul, congressman from Houston. He's a libertarian Republican. The GOP calls him Dr. No .because he votes according to the constitution, not the GOP party heads wishes.

AMEN

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:The EU has not really limited the sovereignty of the individual nation-state.

Not yet, but looking into the costs to some Nation States, (say Scotland,) to be a member...and say looking at the PAY OUT to some, (say Spain,) "equity" for Nation States isn't really there now is it?

The bailing out of Greece was an exception and will not happen again with any other country, preventive measures will be taken to prevent this. It's already being proposed as a matter of fact.

Got any specific examples?

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote: It has been proposed, but Germany was the main opponent to this because it would limit individual sovereignty.

I'm aware of this. How old is the E.U. now? I wonder what the future holds.

While the EU may grow, the countries will never lose their individual sovereignty. Too many key members are heavily opposed to this, especially Germany, like I said.

If one of these key nations (Germany, France, etc.) leaves the EU, the EU will crumble and become irrelevant.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:As for the fact that the US never needed help from outside sources, I can only say that only a small number of European countries ever received aid from other countries except for when alliances were formed but even then, this was due to international conflicts, not internal conflicts.

1) I was talking about the citizens of this country, post Revolution.

2) Ever heard of WW1...or WW2...or other more recent struggles in which UN "Peace Keepers" were used?

When have European citizens received help from outside sources? WWI & WWII were wars that were just fought on European soil and not to free European citizens but to eliminate a growing threat.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:If anybody has experience on being self-reliant and surviving, it's Europe. Europe's history has been filled with internal and external warfare.

And in recent history, (Post American Revolution again) Filled with external help in quelling these times of strife, AND dragging the entire world INTO strife.

Europe is a continent and saying that external help was given to Europe is misleading because not every country received external help in recent wars.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:As for the rest of the article, I don't really see how you explained the cultural differences.

I do not try to EXPLAIN the cultural differences. (Read the post again...it's no article BTW, it's all me) I say, that DUE to cultural differences, folks from "across the pond" will never understand the reasoning of those here in my country, that SUPPORT our 2nd Amendment, and understand why, an armed & LAW ABIDING populous, has shown to drive down violent crime rates.

Well who didn't know that due to cultural differences the POV differs?

It's not about understand, it's about which 'culture' proves safer for its citizens.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote: Europe isn't any less free than the US, one could argue the other way as a matter of fact.

A matter for debate, to be sure.

Start it up.

BubbleBliss wrote:

The bailing out of Greece was an exception and will not happen again with any other country, preventive measures will be taken to prevent this. It's already being proposed as a matter of fact.

Got any specific examples?

Huh? What does Greece have to do with it? My point was that Scotland, which is far from "wealthy" has to PAY around 8 billion for its membership in the EU, (thanks to being part of the UK) and Spain, a much more "well off" nation RECEIVES 6 billion for being a member...seems a bit less than "equitable" IMO.

BubbleBliss wrote: While the EU may grow, the countries will never lose their individual sovereignty. Too many key members are heavily opposed to this, especially Germany, like I said.

If one of these key nations (Germany, France, etc.) leaves the EU, the EU will crumble and become irrelevant.

And it is MY contention that aside from the ease of travel between member nations at the present time DUE to the EU, that the dissolution OF the EU, would likely be better, (certainly for the economies of states most effected by immigration for employment...as taxes on wages for these workers goes to their country of nationality..as opposed to the nation "hosting" their stay while working...)

BubbleBliss wrote:When have European citizens received help from outside sources? WWI & WWII were wars that were just fought on European soil and not to free European citizens but to eliminate a growing threat.

All throughout ww1 and 2 for starters. And it is a very valid point. Hell, Great Brittan JUST finished repaying their war debt to the US, last summer.

That "growing threat" can be debated, would have had little influence on the US, had Japan not bombed us. Furthermore, had the US restricted its fight to just Japan, AND defending American commerce on the Atlantic, there very well could have been some type of "agreements" reached with Nazi Germany..that is, if Russia didn't completely destroy them.

BubbleBliss wrote:Europe is a continent

No sh!t.

BubbleBliss wrote:and saying that external help was given to Europe is misleading because not every country received external help in recent wars.

"Misleading"? How is that? Help is help. Be it militarily, economically, or through humanitarian.

And again, yes, the European continent was given HELP, during both of the MAJOR wars that effected the entire globe.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well who didn't know that due to cultural differences the POV differs?

It's not about understand, it's about which 'culture' proves safer for its citizens.

No real argument from me on that.

BubbleBliss wrote:Start it up.

Well, even though your location says Kentucky, I assume you're from somewhere in Europe. I have said what I need to so far on the topic, you have asserted your opinion, (through living the facts I would assume) so, really the ball is in your court really.

One can hardly say that freedoms within the EU are any more, than in the U.S..

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:

The bailing out of Greece was an exception and will not happen again with any other country, preventive measures will be taken to prevent this. It's already being proposed as a matter of fact.

Got any specific examples?

Huh? What does Greece have to do with it? My point was that Scotland, which is far from "wealthy" has to PAY around 8 billion for its membership in the EU, (thanks to being part of the UK) and Spain, a much more "well off" nation RECEIVES 6 billion for being a member...seems a bit less than "equitable" IMO.

Just throwing it in there, is all.

Where did you get the fact that Scotland would have to pay about 8 billion to join the EU?

Yes, member states receive money for certain projects. Renewable energy plants are probably the most common.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote: While the EU may grow, the countries will never lose their individual sovereignty. Too many key members are heavily opposed to this, especially Germany, like I said.

If one of these key nations (Germany, France, etc.) leaves the EU, the EU will crumble and become irrelevant.

And it is MY contention that aside from the ease of travel between member nations at the present time DUE to the EU, that the dissolution OF the EU, would likely be better, (certainly for the economies of states most effected by immigration for employment...as taxes on wages for these workers goes to their country of nationality..as opposed to the nation "hosting" their stay while working...)

That's not true. Working in an EU member country other than your own requires that country to treat you like a citizen when it comes to taxes, meaning that you have to pay the same taxes as anybody else with your income in that country.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:When have European citizens received help from outside sources? WWI & WWII were wars that were just fought on European soil and not to free European citizens but to eliminate a growing threat.

All throughout ww1 and 2 for starters. And it is a very valid point. Hell, Great Brittan JUST finished repaying their war debt to the US, last summer.

Yet that was war reparations because the US entered the war. Had the US not entered the war, the 'winner' of the war would have taken care of the reparations.
What I'm trying to say is that the only reason Europeans received help from external forces is because those external forces invaded Europe.

guido wrote:

That "growing threat" can be debated, would have had little influence on the US, had Japan not bombed us. Furthermore, had the US restricted its fight to just Japan, AND defending American commerce on the Atlantic, there very well could have been some type of "agreements" reached with Nazi Germany..that is, if Russia didn't completely destroy them.

Well, the fact that in WWII German troops actually landed on US soil and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor can be viewed as a growing threat.

In WWI, Germany was putting immense economic hurt on US imports and has also sunk ships that contained American citizens.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Europe is a continent

No sh!t.

Well you can't throw a continent in one bag like you can a country.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:and saying that external help was given to Europe is misleading because not every country received external help in recent wars.

"Misleading"? How is that? Help is help. Be it militarily, economically, or through humanitarian.

I think Eastern Europe would beg to differ on this.
Plus the fact that Europe was invaded by external forces.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Start it up.

Well, even though your location says Kentucky, I assume you're from somewhere in Europe. I have said what I need to so far on the topic, you have asserted your opinion, (through living the facts I would assume) so, really the ball is in your court really.

One can hardly say that freedoms within the EU are any more, than in the U.S..

I live in KY but I'm a native German.

One could argue that in certain areas Europeans are much freer than Americans.

BubbleBliss wrote:
Just throwing it in there, is all.

Where did you get the fact that Scotland would have to pay about 8 billion to join the EU?

http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Cost-of-EU-membership.3353616.jp

http://www.englishdemocraticparty.org.uk/eurofacts19.html

And a few other links that I cannot find, that were nation specific.

BubbleBliss wrote:That's not true. Working in an EU member country other than your own requires that country to treat you like a citizen when it comes to taxes, meaning that you have to pay the same taxes as anybody else with your income in that country.

http://www.us.kpmg.com/microsite/tax/ies/tea/spring2004/stories/article03.htm

If you read through that link, I'm sure you will see instances where this is not so.

BubbleBliss wrote:Yet that was war reparations because the US entered the war. Had the US not entered the war, the 'winner' of the war would have taken care of the reparations.
What I'm trying to say is that the only reason Europeans received help from external forces is because those external forces invaded Europe.

Ahh..no.

Europe got military help from the US due to Churchill specifically begging for it, and showing that our system of "Lend Lease" created debt that would never fully be able to be repaid to us. That, and like I'd pointed out, the fact that we were attacked by Japan, and through the act, Germany declared war on us, and we in turn on them.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well, the fact that in WWII German troops actually landed on US soil and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor can be viewed as a growing threat.

And like the Japanese attempt in the area of Alaska, it was futile. Again, this was due to us entering the entire conflict, as opposed to limiting our involvement to dealing with Japan.

BubbleBliss wrote:In WWI, Germany was putting immense economic hurt on US imports and has also sunk ships that contained American citizens.

And we could have continued to escort ships in the Atlantic, w/o putting troops on European soil.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well you can't throw a continent in one bag like you can a country.

I don't. I specifically talk about the EU, and related nation states.

BubbleBliss wrote:I think Eastern Europe would beg to differ on this.
Plus the fact that Europe was invaded by external forces.

1) Eastern Europe got help from the Soviets.

2) "External forces" were invading Europe to HELP Europe. To "free" them from Nazi Tyranny.

BubbleBliss wrote:One could argue that in certain areas Europeans are much freer than Americans.

Again, a matter for debate. TBCH, especially in the area(s) of substance control, (drugs) I would tend to agree with you, AND the legislation.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
Just throwing it in there, is all.

Where did you get the fact that Scotland would have to pay about 8 billion to join the EU?

http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Cost-of-EU-membership.3353616.jp

http://www.englishdemocraticparty.org.uk/eurofacts19.html

And a few other links that I cannot find, that were nation specific.

That's from 2007 and 2004. Merkel isn't even anything close to the President of the EU.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:That's not true. Working in an EU member country other than your own requires that country to treat you like a citizen when it comes to taxes, meaning that you have to pay the same taxes as anybody else with your income in that country.

http://www.us.kpmg.com/microsite/tax/ies/tea/spring2004/stories/article03.htm

If you read through that link, I'm sure you will see instances where this is not so.

That is from 2004.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Yet that was war reparations because the US entered the war. Had the US not entered the war, the 'winner' of the war would have taken care of the reparations.
What I'm trying to say is that the only reason Europeans received help from external forces is because those external forces invaded Europe.

Ahh..no.

Europe got military help from the US due to Churchill specifically begging for it, and showing that our system of "Lend Lease" created debt that would never fully be able to be repaid to us. That, and like I'd pointed out, the fact that we were attacked by Japan, and through the act, Germany declared war on us, and we in turn on them.

Once again, Europe is a continent and Churchill was not the leader of it.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well, the fact that in WWII German troops actually landed on US soil and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor can be viewed as a growing threat.

And like the Japanese attempt in the area of Alaska, it was futile. Again, this was due to us entering the entire conflict, as opposed to limiting our involvement to dealing with Japan.

So the war was due to national self interest.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:In WWI, Germany was putting immense economic hurt on US imports and has also sunk ships that contained American citizens.

And we could have continued to escort ships in the Atlantic, w/o putting troops on European soil.

And risk further civilian casualties?

The US was already supplying Britain and France with money and weapons, it just didn't have the man power to enter the war yet.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well you can't throw a continent in one bag like you can a country.

I don't. I specifically talk about the EU, and related nation states.

The EU didn't exist during WWI & II.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:I think Eastern Europe would beg to differ on this.
Plus the fact that Europe was invaded by external forces.

1) Eastern Europe got help from the Soviets.

If you want to call it that, I call it occupation.

guido wrote:

2) "External forces" were invading Europe to HELP Europe. To "free" them from Nazi Tyranny.

The external forces were invading Europe due to self-interest and to eliminate the threat that was Nazi Germany. It had nothing to do with humanitarian reasons as the carpet bombings of cities like Dresden showed. The US Military also knew of Auschwitz but made no attempt to speed up the process of freeing it.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:One could argue that in certain areas Europeans are much freer than Americans.

Again, a matter for debate. TBCH, especially in the area(s) of substance control, (drugs) I would tend to agree with you, AND the legislation.

That and also freedom from corporations that provide inflexible goods.

BubbleBliss wrote:
That's from 2007 and 2004. Merkel isn't even anything close to the President of the EU.

And?

BubbleBliss wrote:That is from 2004.

Well lol. Considering that, and the relative youth of the EU, point out to me where my assertion ISN'T so, due to the EU changing legislation.

BubbleBliss wrote:Once again, Europe is a continent and Churchill was not the leader of it.

You're really just trying to "split hairs" @ this point. Please do continue, it entertains me.

BubbleBliss wrote:So the war was due to national self interest.

More like economic self interest. And even that is debatable.

BubbleBliss wrote:And risk further civilian casualties?

Ever heard of a "moritorium on civilian travel through a war zone"?

BubbleBliss wrote:The US was already supplying Britain and France with money and weapons, it just didn't have the man power to enter the war yet.

And the onliest way we GOT the "man power", was to enact the fµqqing draft, (Like WW1) which sent tens of thousands of American citizens to their deaths, to liberate European countries.(LIKE WW1)

BubbleBliss wrote:The EU didn't exist during WWI & II.

No sh!t! Again with the hair splitting.

BubbleBliss wrote:If you want to call it that, I call it occupation.

Who liberated Berlin?

BubbleBliss wrote:The external forces were invading Europe due to self-interest and to eliminate the threat that was Nazi Germany. It had nothing to do with humanitarian reasons as the carpet bombings of cities like Dresden showed. The US Military also knew of Auschwitz but made no attempt to speed up the process of freeing it.

The US was effected by a "sticky wicket" so to speak in terms of Nazi Concentration camps, due to the alliance.
LOL @ "Self interest" in terms of the US shedding our citizen's blood to free Europe!
You PISS on the graves of the soldiers from my country that died in the act, by saying that. Makes my assertion that we should have let Russia deal with the Nazis even more relevant!

BubbleBliss wrote:That and also freedom from corporations that provide inflexible goods.

Durable goods I assume you mean.
And again I think we part ways as far as any agreement is concerned.
Myself, I am a fiscal conservative, and am against a "global" economy.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
That's from 2007 and 2004. Merkel isn't even anything close to the President of the EU.

And?

And a lot has changed.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:That is from 2004.

Well lol. Considering that, and the relative youth of the EU, point out to me where my assertion ISN'T so, due to the EU changing legislation.

"You should be aware that, by working in another Member State, and by transferring your residence to that Member State, you will usually become ‘resident for tax purposes’ there. The definition of fiscal residence varies from one Member State to another. You must consult the laws of both the country where you have established your residence and your country of origin in order to find out where you are resident for tax purposes.
Bilateral tax conventions have been concluded between Member States of the Union, particularly with a view to avoiding double taxation. In these bilateral tax conventions, the right to tax different types of income is allocated between the host country and the country of origin. These agreements also make it possible to determine where people are resident for tax purposes if, according to the legislation of the host country and the country of origin, they could be considered as being resident in both countries. Bilateral conventions determine which of these two countries is obliged to eliminate the international double taxation and which method (eg. credit-method or exemption-method) is applicable. People resident for tax purposes in an EU country must normally declare there all of their income. In case of double residence the declaration must be made in both countries. They may also be subject to other taxes such as wealth tax or inheritance tax. If you remain resident for tax purposes in your Member State of origin, your remuneration is normally taxable in the State where your work is carried out. Account must, however, be taken of the features of certain tax conventions concluded between Member States, such as those that provide for special rules applicable to people living in the border area of one country and working in the border area of another. The remuneration of public servants is normally taxable in the Member State of origin.
The rules on income tax and other taxes such as wealth tax and inheritance tax are not harmonised at Community level. Because of this, the ways in which taxes are applied, and particularly the rates, can vary significantly from one country to another.
In general, national tax rules must respect the fundamental principle of non-discrimination against people from other EU Member States in identical situations to nationals. One of the implications of free movement is that employees whose income is taxed primarily in a country other than that in which they are resident are entitled to the same tax treatment as residents of that country. This applies to both income tax and tax allowances. The practical application of this principle has been the subject of several judgments by the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
In order to find out the country in which your pay and other income are taxable, and at what rates, you can contact the tax authorities in the countries concerned. You should consult advisers or the tax authorities in the country where you are currently residing as well as in the country in which you plan to live. The tax authorities can also tell you about any formalities you need to complete. In this way, account will be taken of your professional, personal and family situation (see the factsheet on ‘Taxes’)."

http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/nav/en/citizens/services/eu-guide/working/index_en.html#11344_15

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Once again, Europe is a continent and Churchill was not the leader of it.

You're really just trying to "split hairs" @ this point. Please do continue, it entertains me.

It entertains me that you keep lumping Europe into 1 bag. Just because Churchill begged for aid doesn't mean all of Europe did.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:So the war was due to national self interest.

More like economic self interest. And even that is debatable.

Well that's what I said in the first place.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:And risk further civilian casualties?

Ever heard of a "moritorium on civilian travel through a war zone"?

Worked out beautifully for the US in the early stages of WWI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_lusitania#Last_voyage_and_sinking

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:The US was already supplying Britain and France with money and weapons, it just didn't have the man power to enter the war yet.

And the onliest way we GOT the "man power", was to enact the fµqqing draft, (Like WW1) which sent tens of thousands of American citizens to their deaths, to liberate European countries.(LIKE WW1)

To eliminate the threat of the Axis powers and aid America's allies. France may have been liberated but Germany and Austria were occupied.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:The EU didn't exist during WWI & II.

No sh!t! Again with the hair splitting.

We were talking about WWI & WWII and I said that you can't just throw all of Europe in the same bag. You then said that you were talking about the EU specifically....

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:If you want to call it that, I call it occupation.

Who liberated Berlin?

From who? The Soviets or the Nazis?

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:The external forces were invading Europe due to self-interest and to eliminate the threat that was Nazi Germany. It had nothing to do with humanitarian reasons as the carpet bombings of cities like Dresden showed. The US Military also knew of Auschwitz but made no attempt to speed up the process of freeing it.

The US was effected by a "sticky wicket" so to speak in terms of Nazi Concentration camps, due to the alliance.
LOL @ "Self interest" in terms of the US shedding our citizen's blood to free Europe!
You PISS on the graves of the soldiers from my country that died in the act, by saying that. Makes my assertion that we should have let Russia deal with the Nazis even more relevant!

You 'freed' Europe out of self-interest, not because of some moral obligation. The same reason Iraq was
'liberated', the same way Kuwait received aid from the US and the same reason why the US is still fighting in the Philippines. No nation acts just because of moral obligation, it's all about self interest. Ever wonder why the US kisses Saudi Arabia's @ss even though the CIA knows that Al Qaida receives a lot of its funding from Saudi Arabia?

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:That and also freedom from corporations that provide inflexible goods.

Durable goods I assume you mean.
And again I think we part ways as far as any agreement is concerned.

No, inflexible goods or non-durable goods.

You don't think the fact that Americans rely on cars instead of public transportation makes them more reliable on the corporation and therefore limits their freedoms?


Myself, I am a fiscal conservative, and am against a "global" economy.

Just because Churchill begged for aid doesn't mean all of Europe did.

Maybe not. But i'll bet my unemployment check that many Europeans were glad when we invaded Normandy and started our eastward push.

I hope you don't think that we Americans think we're God for liberating and stopping Hitler. We're not a grandstanding bunch over here. I'm certainly not. But i do think this world would've been a different place had we not. Very different.

As far as i'm concerned, Germany, the UK and the USSR suffered the most during that war (not counting Japan). Germany brought it on itself, Russia and the UK endured Hitler's wrath.

Ultimately? I don't think of Germany as the same country as it was under Hitler because it isn't. Don't ever think that some of us believe that way.

BubbleBliss wrote:
And a lot has changed.

LOL!

BubbleBliss wrote:
http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/nav/en/citizens/services/eu-guide/working/index_en.html#11344_15

K, that is all well and good, when dealing with people who PLAN TO STAY in the countries that they are working in. Any facts (You care to show)on the taxation of those who DO NOT?!

BubbleBliss wrote:
It entertains me that you keep lumping Europe into 1 bag. Just because Churchill begged for aid doesn't mean all of Europe did.

PLEASE show me where I do this. Aside of my comments RE: the EU...WHICH BY DEFINITION lumps ALL "Nation State Members" into one boat.

BubbleBliss wrote:
Well that's what I said in the first place.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that. Care to post the link to that post?

BubbleBliss wrote:
Worked out beautifully for the US in the early stages of WWI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_lusitania#Last_voyage_and_sinking

THAT'S FREEDOM for you.

BubbleBliss wrote:
To eliminate the threat of the Axis powers and aid America's allies. France may have been liberated but Germany and Austria were occupied.

LOL! Again, WHO liberated Germany? (Meaning Berlin)

BubbleBliss wrote:
We were talking about WWI & WWII and I said that you can't just throw all of Europe in the same bag. You then said that you were talking about the EU specifically.

Please show me where I lump ALL of Europe into ONE bag. When talking about WW2, you MUST recognize the most powerful nation that was being threatened by Germany, and that Nation was Great Brittan....Who had at its helm, Winston Churchill, and who was the PM of the nation, in the area, that was the US's Biggest ally....

BubbleBliss wrote:

From who? The Soviets or the Nazis?

We can START with the Nazis. BUT YES, who was the BIGGEST supporter of a unified Germany POST WW2!?

BubbleBliss wrote:
You 'freed' Europe out of self-interest, not because of some moral obligation.

Out of an "Economic" self interest, yes, I feel the same. AND I also feel that we should have let the Soviets have their way with Europe.

BubbleBliss wrote:The same reason Iraq was 'liberated', the same way Kuwait received aid from the US and the same reason why the US is still fighting in the Philippines.

Don't forget how my country looks the other way in terms of Israeli pissing on UN resolutions as well!

BubbleBliss wrote:No nation acts just because of moral obligation, it's all about self interest. Ever wonder why the US kisses Saudi Arabia's @ss even though the CIA knows that Al Qaida receives a lot of its funding from Saudi Arabia?

TYVM!
Exactly! It really comes down to giving a fµq about a "globalist" view on the world, economies therein, and a "New World Order" where "all are one"...In other words, a fµqqing pipe dream, and something I myself, stand against.

BubbleBliss wrote:No, inflexible goods or non-durable goods.

The fµq are "flexible goods"?!

BubbleBliss wrote:You don't think the fact that Americans rely on cars instead of public transportation makes them more reliable on the corporation and therefore limits their freedoms?

LOL! I BLAME the Liberals in my country for making our economy into a consumer one!

Instead of directing monies into manufacturing, thay pushed for financing, and imports, to "boost" us into a "GLOBAL" partnership with the nations of the world!

Make NO mistake. When you see some "Bleeding heart Liberal" from my country b!tch about Nike, (OR ANY OTHER manufacturer that uses what amounts to SLAVE LABOR) and their employment practices, they have PLENTY of that corporations products of their own OR BETTER YET, they are on the PAYROLL of the SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP(S) lobbying FOR them.

TexasBlue wrote:

Just because Churchill begged for aid doesn't mean all of Europe did.

Maybe not. But i'll bet my unemployment check that many Europeans were glad when we invaded Normandy and started our eastward push.

I hope you don't think that we Americans think we're God for liberating and stopping Hitler. We're not a grandstanding bunch over here. I'm certainly not. But i do think this world would've been a different place had we not. Very different.

As far as i'm concerned, Germany, the UK and the USSR suffered the most during that war (not counting Japan). Germany brought it on itself, Russia and the UK endured Hitler's wrath.

Ultimately? I don't think of Germany as the same country as it was under Hitler because it isn't. Don't ever think that some of us believe that way.

I'm not saying we didn't benefit from it, I'm merely saying that the liberation of Europe was NOT due to humanitarian or moral reasons, it was due to national self interest.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
And a lot has changed.

LOL!

You think flaws in the system stay put and don't get fixed?

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/nav/en/citizens/services/eu-guide/working/index_en.html#11344_15

K, that is all well and good, when dealing with people who PLAN TO STAY in the countries that they are working in. Any facts (You care to show)on the taxation of those who DO NOT?!

"You have certain specific rights if you are a ‘posted’ worker, i.e. you are in work for a limited period of time at your employer’s request in a Member State other than the one where you normally work.
If you are to be posted for a period of more than a month, your employer must inform you in writing, before you leave, of your pay and working conditions while you are abroad.
You will usually remain affiliated to the social security scheme of your country of origin (see above). As regards taxation of your income, the tax conventions concluded between Member States of the EU generally provide that the pay of posted workers may, on certain very precise terms, continue to be taxed in the country where they are normally resident. One of these conditions is that the time spent by workers in the Member State to which they have been posted must not exceed 183 days over 12 months (normally any period of 12 consecutive months). Another condition is that the remuneration paid to the employee is not paid or borne by the employer resident in the host country or by employers permanent established in the host country.
For more information, you are advised to contact the tax authorities of the Member States concerned (see also the section on ‘Taxes’ above)."

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
It entertains me that you keep lumping Europe into 1 bag. Just because Churchill begged for aid doesn't mean all of Europe did.

PLEASE show me where I do this. Aside of my comments RE: the EU...WHICH BY DEFINITION lumps ALL "Nation State Members" into one boat.

By saying that the US helped Europe due to the request of Churchill.
Also due to the fact that not every European country benefited from WWI, yet you say that Europe did benefit from it.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
Well that's what I said in the first place.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that. Care to post the link to that post?

Look it up yourself. I said that the US entered both wars in self interest to eliminate the growing threat of the Axis powers and Nazi Germany.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
Worked out beautifully for the US in the early stages of WWI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_lusitania#Last_voyage_and_sinking

THAT'S FREEDOM for you.

Freedom to what? Get your citizens killed?

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
To eliminate the threat of the Axis powers and aid America's allies. France may have been liberated but Germany and Austria were occupied.

LOL! Again, WHO liberated Germany? (Meaning Berlin)

Who occupied Berlin and stuck Germany with immense and unpayable war reparations?

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
We were talking about WWI & WWII and I said that you can't just throw all of Europe in the same bag. You then said that you were talking about the EU specifically.

Please show me where I lump ALL of Europe into ONE bag. When talking about WW2, you MUST recognize the most powerful nation that was being threatened by Germany, and that Nation was Great Brittan....Who had at its helm, Winston Churchill, and who was the PM of the nation, in the area, that was the US's Biggest ally....

Already showed you this above.

[quote="guido"]

BubbleBliss wrote:

From who? The Soviets or the Nazis?

We can START with the Nazis. BUT YES, who was the BIGGEST supporter of a unified Germany POST WW2!? [/quotes]

As an occupational force, it's your responsibility to do so. But yes, the US supported any European nation as long as it was Capitalist.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
You 'freed' Europe out of self-interest, not because of some moral obligation.

Out of an "Economic" self interest, yes, I feel the same. AND I also feel that we should have let the Soviets have their way with Europe.

The US was shitting its pants over Communism coming to power in Vietnam, Korea and Latin America but you think the Soviets should have handled Europe?

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:The same reason Iraq was 'liberated', the same way Kuwait received aid from the US and the same reason why the US is still fighting in the Philippines.

Don't forget how my country looks the other way in terms of Israeli pissing on UN resolutions as well!

That is also due to self interest.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:No nation acts just because of moral obligation, it's all about self interest. Ever wonder why the US kisses Saudi Arabia's @ss even though the CIA knows that Al Qaida receives a lot of its funding from Saudi Arabia?

TYVM!
Exactly! It really comes down to giving a fµq about a "globalist" view on the world, economies therein, and a "New World Order" where "all are one"...In other words, a fµqqing pipe dream, and something I myself, stand against.

How so?
A multi-national organisation like a stronger UN could not eliminate national self-interest, but could definitely limit a nations strive for power and wealth.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:No, inflexible goods or non-durable goods.

The fµq are "flexible goods"?!

The same as non-durable goods. Goods that people rely on day in and day out and the ones who barely vary in price, therefore enabling the provider to keep prices high if a certain communication between the providers exists.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:You don't think the fact that Americans rely on cars instead of public transportation makes them more reliable on the corporation and therefore limits their freedoms?

LOL! I BLAME the Liberals in my country for making our economy into a consumer one!

Instead of directing monies into manufacturing, thay pushed for financing, and imports, to "boost" us into a "GLOBAL" partnership with the nations of the world!

The fact that the 'hands-off' policies enabled a lot of these companies to offshore and outsource doesn't matter then, does it?

guido wrote:
Make NO mistake. When you see some "Bleeding heart Liberal" from my country b!tch about Nike, (OR ANY OTHER manufacturer that uses what amounts to SLAVE LABOR) and their employment practices, they have PLENTY of that corporations products of their own OR BETTER YET, they are on the PAYROLL of the SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP(S) lobbying FOR them.

Not necessarily. I know several people who speak out against McDonald's and refuse to eat there.

BubbleBliss wrote:

As far as i'm concerned, Germany, the UK and the USSR suffered the most during that war (not counting Japan). Germany brought it on itself, Russia and the UK endured Hitler's wrath

America suffered PLENTY. A generation of people that were effected by something that realistically didn't need to effect them the way it did..

BubbleBliss wrote:
Ultimately? I don't think of Germany as the same country as it was under Hitler because it isn't. Don't ever think that some of us believe that way.

Who thinks that way? It's ILLEGAL for any German citizen to THINK Hitler was "right", or that National Socialism was a "correct" course of action yes? (KINDA plays into "Freedoms" of citizens...Bump the EU...)

BubbleBliss wrote:I'm not saying we didn't benefit from it, I'm merely saying that the liberation of Europe was NOT due to humanitarian or moral reasons, it was due to national self interest.

Economic self interests... For all involved...if one subscribes to the "Globalist" frame work.

BubbleBliss wrote:
You think flaws in the system stay put and don't get fixed?

Link?

BubbleBliss wrote:

"You have certain specific rights if you are a ‘posted’ worker, i.e. you are in work for a limited period of time at your employer’s request in a Member State other than the one where you normally work.
If you are to be posted for a period of more than a month, your employer must inform you in writing, before you leave, of your pay and working conditions while you are abroad.
You will usually remain affiliated to the social security scheme of your country of origin (see above). As regards taxation of your income, the tax conventions concluded between Member States of the EU generally provide that the pay of posted workers may, on certain very precise terms, continue to be taxed in the country where they are normally resident. One of these conditions is that the time spent by workers in the Member State to which they have been posted must not exceed 183 days over 12 months (normally any period of 12 consecutive months). Another condition is that the remuneration paid to the employee is not paid or borne by the employer resident in the host country or by employers permanent established in the host country.
For more information, you are advised to contact the tax authorities of the Member States concerned (see also the section on ‘Taxes’ above)."

AND in ALL that "red tape", you think that taxation is kept equitable?

LOL

BubbleBliss wrote:
By saying that the US helped Europe due to the request of Churchill.
Also due to the fact that not every European country benefited from WWI, yet you say that Europe did benefit from it.

The FACT remains, that the US DID enter into the European conflict @ Brittan's request, (as well as France's exiled Gov't, and others)

NO ONE "benefited" from the Allies treaty ending ww1...it LED to ww2 as a matter of fact...

BubbleBliss wrote:Look it up yourself. I said that the US entered both wars in self interest to eliminate the growing threat of the Axis powers and Nazi Germany.

Our "self interest" was based on LIBERAL whinings in this country, at the inhumane way that EUROPEANS (POSSIBLY "Juden" in particular) were being dealt with by the Nazis!

BubbleBliss wrote:
Freedom to what? Get your citizens killed?

Personal attacks will not be tolerated here, Guido. This is your first warning. If you want to make personal attacks, then I suggest you go back to your own forum.

- The Mod

, it's called freedom to do as one pleases, ASIDE from governmental regulations.

BubbleBliss wrote:

Who occupied Berlin and stuck Germany with immense and unpayable war reparations?

Which side of the wall?

BubbleBliss wrote:

Already showed you this above.

Still waiting...

BubbleBliss wrote:

As an occupational force, it's your responsibility to do so. But yes, the US supported any European nation as long as it was Capitalist.

THERE YOU GO! The US WASN'T the "only" occupying force!

And no, the US supported any European state that was DEMOCRATIC, in nature...and did NOT specify that they need have a "Capitalistic" economy..look @ France...Italy..Spain, et al!

BubbleBliss wrote:
The US was shitting its pants over Communism coming to power in Vietnam, Korea and Latin America but you think the Soviets should have handled Europe?

No one was shitting their pants, until AFTER ww2. But yes, after the fact, (as Patton, and other notable WW2 Generals said) we DID protect our interests against the evil spread of Communism.

BubbleBliss wrote:That is also due to self interest.

It's due to fµqqing Special interest groups .

BubbleBliss wrote:How so?
A multi-national organisation like a stronger UN could not eliminate national self-interest, but could definitely limit a nations strive for power and wealth.

A stronger UN would require a surrendering of certain Federal liberties from us, (as members), something Myself, and OTHER self respecting Americans would NEVER allow. It's ENOUGH that we seem to be expected to fight or babysit conflicts that put our nation, and our citizenry @ risk.

BubbleBliss wrote:
The same as non-durable goods. Goods that people rely on day in and day out and the ones who barely vary in price, therefore enabling the provider to keep prices high if a certain communication between the providers exists.

fµq "non durable goods"! Let each nation be to their own resources in RE: to them!

To HELL with global consumerism as well!

Son, you got ME fµqqed up with someone who cares about a consumer economy!

BubbleBliss wrote:
The fact that the 'hands-off' policies enabled a lot of these companies to offshore and outsource doesn't matter then, does it?

As far as US companies, the reason they moved off shore, was taxation. Get your facts straight. Primarily, NAFTA fµqqed the American Manufacturing process...in the last 30 years.

BubbleBliss wrote:Not necessarily. I know several people who speak out against McDonald's and refuse to eat there.

A non issue. I'm American, and due to common fµqqing sense, I refuse to eat fµqqing McDonalds...

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:The EU has not really limited the sovereignty of the individual nation-state.

Not yet, but looking into the costs to some Nation States, (say Scotland,) to be a member...and say looking at the PAY OUT to some, (say Spain,) "equity" for Nation States isn't really there now is it?

WTF? This doesn't make any sense. What exactly do you think Scotland has paid on its own? Scotland is in the EU as a part of the United Kingdom. It does not have separate membership.

guido wrote:I'm aware of this. How old is the E.U. now? I wonder what the future holds.

About 40 years. 20 in its current form.

guido wrote:Humm, seems I hit a nerve? One could (as an American) react the same way, when folks from Europe, (or anywhere else with very strict firearms prohibition is in place, when they remark about our (the U.S.'s) firearms control laws...of course I'm referring to this comment:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Americans creating parodies of Europe is still bullshit, but it has since stopped being entertaining bullshit. Now it is just pig ignorant.

Just switch the names around sparky, and I'm sure you'll get my point.

Oh I get your point entirely but you personally are misinformed about Europe. As there are Europeans who do not understand how the US works. But this isn't about them, this is about the errors in your post and your misunderstanding about Europe and the EU. The terms I used "soft tyranny", "Orwellian healthcare" are terms I have personally come across from Americans used to describe European societies. So your point is only half a point.

guido wrote:You FAIL to see it!?

Executive orders, Presidential Decrees, etc.

Power is supposed to be in the hands of the Senate isn't it? They can impeach a president, force him to resign.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
WTF? This doesn't make any sense. What exactly do you think Scotland has paid on its own? Scotland is in the EU as a part of the United Kingdom. It does not have separate membership

Scotland's share in the cost of EU membership is 8 billion.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:About 40 years. 20 in its current form.

Still mighty young. With plenty of time to (possibly)wrest more power from Nation States.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Oh I get your point entirely but you personally are misinformed about Europe. As there are Europeans who do not understand how the US works. But this isn't about them, this is about the errors in your post and your misunderstanding about Europe and the EU. The terms I used "soft tyranny", "Orwellian healthcare" are terms I have personally come across from Americans used to describe European societies. So your point is only half a point.

If I am misinformed, please enlighten me number one.
Number two, I must be reading information that is incorrect..like any/all information I have ever read on the subject, which, not to toot my own horn, seems unlikely.

Number 3, I have never in any of the few posts here, used any of the terms you state. Perhaps you are assuming things about my attitude towards Europe, the UK, and other matters, based on your own bias.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Power is supposed to be in the hands of the Senate isn't it? They can impeach a president, force him to resign.

Even if impeached, a President doesn't have to resign.

See Bill Clinton.

TexasBlue wrote:Maybe not. But i'll bet my unemployment check that many Europeans were glad when we invaded Normandy and started our eastward push.

Absolutely. The war might have dragged a few more years if you didn't. Hitler had already sown the seeds of his own destruction before December 1941. He had reneged on his non-aggression pact with Russia and was overstretching his resources. He had lost his fuel supply in North Africa. Those two issues are pretty critical.

TexasBlue wrote:I hope you don't think that we Americans think we're God for liberating and stopping Hitler.

Absolutely not Tex but it concerns me that so many Americans think you did it singlehanded and who forget that "The European War" was going on for 3-4 years before the US entered. I think some people need to remember that because it isn't just "liberals" who rewrite history books for convenience.

TexasBlue wrote:As far as i'm concerned, Germany, the UK and the USSR suffered the most during that war (not counting Japan). Germany brought it on itself, Russia and the UK endured Hitler's wrath.

And it makes me angry when people like Grubber from SP imply there was no war before Team America: World Police entered and saved us all. My g-grandparents on my dad's side suffered the blitz in London, on my mother's side, they worked the railways moving troops, supplies and weapons to where they were needed. So we weren't all just sitting around playing cricket, drinking port and musing on whether we ought to send a strongly worded letter to Hitler and ask him to desist in the name of chivalry because old chap, invading France just isn't bloody well on!

guido wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
WTF? This doesn't make any sense. What exactly do you think Scotland has paid on its own? Scotland is in the EU as a part of the United Kingdom. It does not have separate membership

Scotland's share in the cost of EU membership is 8 billion.

Where do you get that figure? Scotland is part of the UK. They also receive a disproportionately higher level of tax spending from Westminster comapred to England, Wales and the channel islands.

guido wrote:Still mighty young. With plenty of time to (possibly)wrest more power from Nation States.

Guido, please learn about the EU before you pass judgement because it is clear you have very little clue as to what it is all about.

guido wrote:If I am misinformed, please enlighten me number one.
Number two, I must be reading information that is incorrect..like any/all information I have ever read on the subject, which, not to toot my own horn, seems unlikely.

Provide links for your statements and bubblebliss and I will happily oblige.

guido wrote:Number 3, I have never in any of the few posts here, used any of the terms you state. Perhaps you are assuming things about my attitude towards Europe, the UK, and other matters, based on your own bias.

I never said you, I said I had heard those terms used against Europe and Europeans. I hear them all the time and you yourself have implied that we have precious few actual freedoms.

guido wrote:Even if impeached, a President doesn't have to resign.

Then please explain Nixon.

guido wrote:See Bill Clinton.

Having sex with another woman outside of his marriage is regrettable but hardly worth the self-righteous indignation it acquired. Certainly not worth forcing a resignation over.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

Provide links for your statements and bubblebliss and I will happily oblige.[/quote]

I have 3 meetings starting in about an hour. I will gather my links thereafter.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Then please explain Nixon.

What can I say? HE did the "right thing", and resigned BEFORE he was impeached.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Having sex with another woman outside of his marriage is regrettable but hardly worth the self-righteous indignation it acquired. Certainly not worth forcing a resignation over.

While I agree, he WAS however impeached for lying to a congressional committee regarding it.

guido wrote:Out of an "Economic" self interest, yes, I feel the same. AND I also feel that we should have let the Soviets have their way with Europe.

Excuse me? This is false. The Soviets never intended to expand beyond eastern Europe. The buffer zone was agreed at the end of WWII by the allied leaders so this idea that Soviet Russia was always on alert to turn Europe-Asia into a greater Soviet empire, and western europe "needed" protection from America is without foundation.